On 11/17/2016 06:12 PM, Sean Turner wrote:
At IETF 97, the chairs lead a discussion to resolve whether the WG should
rebrand TLS1.3 to something else. Slides can be found @
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/97/slides/slides-97-tls-rebranding-aka-pr612-01.pdf.
The consensus in the room was to l
Peter has some excellent points here (although I would prefer "TLS 2.0").
Perhaps the "re-branders" are losing votes and hums because we're fragmented
into numerous camps.
With this in mind, I'm voting in favor of any re-branding of TLS 1.3 where the
protocol name remains "TLS" and major versio
> With this in mind, I'm voting in favor of any re-branding of TLS 1.3 where the
> protocol name remains "TLS" and major version becomes > 1.
Me too.
___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
Hello,
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 9:43 PM, Salz, Rich wrote:
>
> > With this in mind, I'm voting in favor of any re-branding of TLS 1.3
> where the
> > protocol name remains "TLS" and major version becomes > 1.
>
> Me too.
>
> +1
--
SY, Dmitry Belyavsky
__
Hello,
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 9:43 PM, Salz, Rich wrote:
> With this in mind, I'm voting in favor of any re-branding of TLS 1.3
where the
> protocol name remains "TLS" and major version becomes > 1.
I originally hummed for 1.3 in the room as that is what people (that are
currently aware of i
In the room last week, I hummed for "TLS 4".
that said, I overall agree with Andrei's sentiment..
> I'm voting in favor of any re-branding of TLS 1.3 where the
> protocol name remains "TLS" and major version becomes > 1.
HTH,
=JeffH
___
TLS mailing
Do "about:config" in firefox and look for TLS:
security.tls.version.max default integer 3
And then perhaps look at http://kb.mozillazine.org/Security.tls.version.* (yes
the star is part of the URL)
EVEN MOZILLA can't get it "right."
___
> On 21 Nov 2016, at 20:43, Salz, Rich wrote:
>
>
>> With this in mind, I'm voting in favor of any re-branding of TLS 1.3 where
>> the
>> protocol name remains "TLS" and major version becomes > 1.
>
> Me too.
Agree
___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.o
Throwing my hat into the ring, the basic record protocol has not changed.
If anything, what is currently referred to as TLSv1.3 is really just a major
update to the handshake messages.
If the record protocol were to change to use a sane 4-byte header (which I
proposed many months ago), then I t
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Salz, Rich wrote:
> Do "about:config" in firefox and look for TLS:
> security.tls.version.max default integer 3
>
> And then perhaps look at http://kb.mozillazine.org/Security.tls.version.*
> (yes the star is part of the URL)
>
> EVEN MOZILLA can't
+1 to TLS 1.3. My strong preference is TLS 1.3.
Reasons have been advanced ad-nauseam.
Just a couple of additional thoughts:
1.3 is in the protocol. So there.
"Perl 6". Just because you advance a version number to a big one,
doesn't mean that businesses will see the justification to upgrade.
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
>
> > On 21 Nov 2016, at 20:43, Salz, Rich wrote:
> >
> >
> >> With this in mind, I'm voting in favor of any re-branding of TLS 1.3
> where the
> >> protocol name remains "TLS" and major version becomes > 1.
> >
> > Me too.
>
> Agree
>
I can live
On Mon, 2016-11-21 at 19:34 +, Salz, Rich wrote:
> Do "about:config" in firefox and look for TLS:
> security.tls.version.max default integer 3
>
> And then perhaps look at http://kb.mozillazine.org/Security.tls.version.*
> (yes the star is part of the URL)
>
> EVEN MOZILLA can't
➢ You should be reluctant to draw too many conclusions from a field which you
can only access by clicking through a big scary warning that you are voiding
your warranty:
Warranty?
And sure, users never click through security warnings ☺
At any rate, this was intended to be a little light-hearte
On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 02:54:23AM +, Dang, Quynh (Fed) wrote:
>
> Rekeying too often than needed would just create more room for
> issues for the connection/session without gaining any additional
> practical security at all.
With regards to rekeying frequency I'm concerned about testability,
If it wasn't because we don't need more noise in this discussion I would
have suggested SSL 5.0 which seems to be the logical conclusion from the
reasoning people are using. Clearly, everyone thinks that the battle of
replacing "SSL" with "TLS" in the popular and technical references to the
standar
Hi Ilari,
You were right, for testing, a smaller number should be used.
Quynh.
From: ilariliusva...@welho.com on behalf of Ilari
Liusvaara
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 3:42 PM
To: Dang, Quynh (Fed)
Cc: Martin Thomson; tls@ietf.org; c...@ietf.org
Subjec
17 matches
Mail list logo
