<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=koi8-r"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><br><div><div>28 июля 2014 г., в 9:13, Leif Johansson <<a href="mailto:leifj@sunet.se">leifj@sunet.se</a>> написал(а):</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div style="font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">On 2014-07-28 07:44, Basil Dolmatov wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite"><br><br>Отправлено с iPhone<br><br><blockquote type="cite">27 июля 2014 г., в 16:09, Leif Johansson <<a href="mailto:leifj@sunet.se">leifj@sunet.se</a>> написал(а):<br><br><blockquote type="cite">On 2014-07-26 17:26, Paul Hoffman wrote:<br>Or not. The draft was pretty thoroughly thrashed at the last TLS WG<br>meeting at IETF 90. It seems predicated on the question "if I want to<br>force everyone to do crypto using my limited view of a crypto envelope,<br>what changes would I make in TLS".<br></blockquote><br>Yeah I saw thats what happened. Still can't help thinking that some of<br>the premise is valid: is there a way for crypto-containers to be less<br>tied to TLS cipher suites?<br></blockquote>I'd rather not. ;)<br><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><br>I'm a big fan of double-negation but... you prefer fewer ties to TLS or<br>more ties :-)</div></blockquote>Long story, better to tell it f2f ;)</div><div><br></div><br></body></html>