https://github.com/tlswg/oldversions-deprecate/issues/10 remains unresolved.
___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
https://english.ncsc.nl/latest/news/2021/january/19/it-security-guidelines-for-transport-layer-security-2.1
may be of interest.
___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
https://www.nsa.gov/News-Features/Feature-Stories/Article-View/Article/2462345/nsa-releases-eliminating-obsolete-transport-layer-security-tls-protocol-configu/
may be of interest.
___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/
On 11/28/20 10:13 AM, Stephen Farrell
wrote:
Hiya,
On 28/11/2020 04:39, Gary Gapinski wrote:
Looking at https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate-09
§2:
* §2 ¶5
On 12/2/20 6:00 PM, Ackermann, Michael wrote:
I don't disagree with anything you say on the TLS subject, which is
essentially that prior versions of TLS may be considered insecure, etc. and
should be deprecated.
RFC 2119 equates, semantically, at least in English, MUST NOT with
prohibi
Looking at https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate-09
§2:
§2 ¶5 has «TLS 1.3, specified in TLSv1.3 [RFC8446]…».
§2 ¶4 has «TLSv1.2, specified in RFC5246 [RFC5246]…»
§2 ¶3 has «TLS 1.1, specified in [RFC4346]…»
Were these
On 5/21/20 11:52 AM, Erik Nygren wrote:
Are there any objections to "ECH" or should we just go with that?
I have no objection, but would benefit from consensus on whether it
(ECH) is an initialism or acronym. My opinion is that it is best as an
initialism (as is, e.g., TLS).
___
On 4/12/19 7:28 PM, Christopher Wood
wrote:
This is the working group last call for the "Deprecating TLSv1.0 and TLSv1.1” draft available at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate/
Please review the document and send your commen
