This addresses Samir Barguil’s OPSDIR review, and Erik Kline’s AD comments.
From: internet-dra...@ietf.org
Date: Monday, March 24, 2025 at 2:35 PM
To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org
Cc: uta@ietf.org
Subject: [Uta] I-D Action: draft-ietf-uta-require-tls13-08.txt
!-
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-uta-require-tls13-07.txt is now available. It is a
work item of the Using TLS in Applications (UTA) WG of the IETF.
Title: New Protocols Must Require TLS 1.3
Authors: Rich Salz
Nimrod Aviram
Name:draft-ietf-uta-require-tls13-07.txt
Pages: 8
My comment was based on the observation that the document discusses several
aspects beyond directly modifying RFC 9325, as it also provides broader
guidance on related topics.
I disagree. It modifies 9325 and then the rest of the document gives the
rationale for those decisions. PQ is only on
Hi Rich,
I think there might have been a misunderstanding of my comment.
I'm not questioning whether the discussed topics are related to updating RFC
9325-I agree that they provide important rationale for the changes. My point is
that the abstract and introduction should clearly state that thes
Gorry Fairhurst has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-uta-require-tls13-08: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer
Hi Rich,
My comment was based on the observation that the document discusses several
aspects beyond directly modifying RFC 9325, as it also provides broader
guidance on related topics.
For example:
1. Post-Quantum Cryptography (Section 3): While this is an important topic,
its inclusion r
