On Wed, Apr 09, 2025 at 07:51:59PM -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> Perhaps not, but that's not what I am saying. Rather, the point I am
> making is that your proposed text limiting this to *browsers* is far too
> narrow and the
> original text that says TLS 1.3 is widely deployed is in fact correct
Thanks, Med
I did understand your reply and appreciate it, i just felt that i'd also
raise my concerns against the IMHO inappropriate, too-broad requirements raised
by
the ULA draft, whether or not they would ultimately apply to our anima draft or
not
(e.g.: wrt to "entirely new" for example).
Toerless Eckert writes:
>On Wed, Apr 09, 2025 at 07:51:59PM -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>> Perhaps not, but that's not what I am saying. Rather, the point I am
>> making is that your proposed text limiting this to *browsers* is far too
>> narrow and the
>> original text that says TLS 1.3 is wide
Please do not confuse IoT with "constrained devices/networks". The later has
been
the mayority of focus of IoT work in the IETF for almost two decades now, but it
is not how IoT is used outside the IETF - including how most non-IETF attendants
would read the term "IoT" in RFCs (not knowing the IET
On Tue, Apr 08, 2025 at 11:23:44AM -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> I don't agree that this change is indicated. TLS 1.3 is far more widespread
> than just in browsers. It's been in major libraries for years and is
> supported in the Windows, MacOS, iOS, and Android stacks. This is not to say
> that
On Tue, Apr 08, 2025 at 04:48:12PM +, Salz, Rich wrote:
> Is the second paragraph of Sec 4 not sufficient? It says “If deployment
> considerations are a concern, the protocol MAY specify TLS 1.2 as an
> additional, non-default option.”
That wording alone encourages non-interop: One implement
Hi Steffen,
Thanks for the follow-up.
For my own convenience, I'm using https://tinyurl.com/brskp-prm-diff to track
the changes you made so far.
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med
> -Message d'origine-
> De : Fries, Steffen
> Envoyé : mardi 8 avril 2025 18:57
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INN
Alan DeKok wrote:
> (Not speaking as UTA chair)
> On Apr 8, 2025, at 12:05 PM, Toerless Eckert wrote:
>> Recommending, but not requiring the use of TLS 1.3 is unfortunately
necessary for
>> quite a while for the much larger space of IOT equipment and protocols
written
>> f
+1
Behcet Sarikaya , 9 Nis 2025 Çar, 17:53 tarihinde
şunu yazdı:
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2025 at 1:15 AM Valery Smyslov wrote:
>
>> (speaking not as UTA chair)
>>
>> Hi Toerless,
>>
>> if we are talking about IOT devices, then I've been told a lot of times by
>> more knowledgeable than I
>> people
Valery,
you are talking about constrained IoT devices, i am talking about the broader
set of "embedded" (most not very constrained) devices, such as used in wide
range
of industries, typically with extremely long technology adoption and
certification cycles.
Cheers
Toerless
On Wed, Apr 09
Michael Richardson writes:
>Or, you can write new application level code, but the base embedded system,
>which contains TLS as part of the SDK, can not be upgraded without a new
>review.
That's what I usually run into. A tweak in the application-level code isn't a
big deal, but adding an entire
Hi YANG doctors,
As some of you might be aware, Dan Romascanu and Mehmet Ersue have been running
the YANG doctors directorate for the last several years. Both of them were
long-time participants in IETF but stopped coming to any meetings before COVID.
At this time, they have decided to retire f
On Wed, Apr 9, 2025 at 7:35 PM Toerless Eckert wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 08, 2025 at 11:23:44AM -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > I don't agree that this change is indicated. TLS 1.3 is far more
> widespread
> > than just in browsers. It's been in major libraries for years and is
> > supported in the Wi
(speaking not as UTA chair)
Hi Toerless,
if we are talking about IOT devices, then I've been told a lot of times by
more knowledgeable than I
people that IOT devices mostly rely on DTLS and not on TLS. And DTLS is
explicitly
mentioned in the draft as being out of scope.
Regards,
Valery.
> D
On Wed, Apr 9, 2025 at 1:15 AM Valery Smyslov wrote:
> (speaking not as UTA chair)
>
> Hi Toerless,
>
> if we are talking about IOT devices, then I've been told a lot of times by
> more knowledgeable than I
> people that IOT devices mostly rely on DTLS and not on TLS. And DTLS is
> explicitly
> m
Dear all,
The bcc option mentioned below doesn't work, surely because I reached
the maximum amount of recipients.
Hence this forwarded message to each individual OPS WG.
Regards, Benoit
Forwarded Message
Subject:Fwd: RFC5706bis => draft-opsarea-rfc5706bis posted
Re
16 matches
Mail list logo
