[Uta] Comments as draft-rsalz-uta-require-tls13

2024-03-25 Thread Alan DeKok
358 Of the different methods, I think the wpa_supplicant method is the least preferred. Alan DeKok. ___ Uta mailing list Uta@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta

Re: [Uta] Comments as draft-rsalz-uta-require-tls13

2024-03-25 Thread Alan DeKok
r" construct and at what > Tn+delta? And if you say "the highest version available" you're making it > even more intractable/worse. > > The current wording seems the least disruptive to me. Yes, in some number of > years we'll have to

Re: [Uta] Adoption call for draft-rsalz-uta-require-tls13-01

2024-04-04 Thread Alan DeKok
24. > Please, send your opinions on the list by this date. Please also indicate > whether you are ready to review / contribute. (chair hat off) I support adoption. I'm ready to review / contribute. Alan DeKok. ___ Uta mailing

[Uta] Re: [Anima] Concern about draft-ietf-uta-require-tls13-10 with IoT protocols

2025-04-08 Thread Alan DeKok
ps a different question is "Do we want to avoid mandating TLS 1.3 for everyone *else* in the world, simply because one use-case refuses to upgrade?" My answer to that would be "no". The benefit gained everywhere else by mandating TLS 1.3 likely outweighs the minor problems o

[Uta] Re: [Last-Call] Concern about draft-ietf-uta-require-tls13-10 with IoT protocols

2025-04-10 Thread Alan DeKok
erywhere _else_ is fine. And if that's true, what is the plan for mandating TLS 1.3, and when we will put that plan into effect. If those other issues can't be addressed, then by the same token, there's no need to address the "don't mandate TLS 1.3" argument. Al

[Uta] Re: [Last-Call] Re: Concern about draft-ietf-uta-require-tls13-10 with IoT protocols

2025-04-14 Thread Alan DeKok
andate TLS 1.3 now, but perhaps we will mandate it one day. I just don't see any of the current arguments against mandating TLS 1.3 changing in 10 or even 20 years. Alan DeKok. ___ Uta mailing list -- uta@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to uta-le...@ietf.org