(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 Tue, Apr 8, 2025 at 9:06 AM Toerless Eckert wrote:
> Dear IESG, *:
>
> We received IESG review for draft-ietf-anima-brski-prm that was asking to
> make the use of TLS 1.3 mandatory based on the expectation that
> draft-ietf-uta-require-tls13
> would become RFC - unless we provide sufficient ju
Hi Toerless, all,
Please see inline one clarification comment as I think that is important.
Cheers,
Med
> -Message d'origine-
> De : Toerless Eckert
> Envoyé : mardi 8 avril 2025 18:05
> À : draft-ietf-uta-require-tls13@ietf.org; last-c...@ietf.org;
> uta@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org
> C
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.”
___
Uta mailing list -- uta@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to uta-le.
(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
> for non-browser enviroments where IOT equipme
Dear IESG, *:
We received IESG review for draft-ietf-anima-brski-prm that was asking to
make the use of TLS 1.3 mandatory based on the expectation that
draft-ietf-uta-require-tls13
would become RFC - unless we provide sufficient justification in our (prm)
draft.
I would like to point out, that
