On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 12:12 PM, Bill Cox <waywardg...@google.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Dave Garrett <davemgarr...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 02:27:02 pm Bill Cox wrote: >> >> Personally, I hope this new version of TLS, save for possibly some minor >> update & extensions, is the final version. I hope that Google's efforts to >> get QUIC as-is specced out go quickly and smoothly, and that it can be used >> as a basis to develop an official total TCP/TLS replacement. (the early >> documentation for QUIC was horrible, but the current work is vastly >> improved) As far as I'm concerned, TLS 1.3 is a transitional measure which >> should only be used in the medium-term by those who adopt new tech very >> slowly, and in the long-term phased out entirely. It is a very important >> transitional measure that needs to be done with as high a security and >> performance as possible, but a finite one nonetheless. (well, arguably, >> pretty much everything is, given a long enough timeframe ;) We have to get >> through the short-term to get to the long-term, though. >> >> >> Dave >> > > I wish that were the plan (to upgrade QUIC crypto and eventually make that > the new crypto platform). If I am not mistaken, QUICK crypto is going to > be archived, TLS 1.3 will replace the crypto code, and QUIC will remain the > transport layer. > This is my understanding as well, based both onconversations with the QUIC folks, and Adam and Jana's public presentations. A number of us (MT, I, Jana, Ian, AGL, Christian) have already started some initial conversations at how to do that. With that said, I don't think there's a plausible story in which QUIC becomes the only transport protocol in the world any time soon, so I don't think standalone TLS 1.3 is going away. -Ekr
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
