This is actually uplift to PS. On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 12:16 PM, Yoav Nir <ynir.i...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 16 Mar 2017, at 21:01, kathleen.moriarty.i...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > Please excuse typos, sent from handheld device > > On Mar 16, 2017, at 11:37 AM, Yoav Nir <ynir.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 16 Mar 2017, at 17:17, Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote: > > Hi folks > > I note that we are proposing to uplift RFC 5289 to PS, despite the fact > that it > standardizes some CBC cipher suites, which the WG is looking to move away > from. I recognize that these are the only cipher suites you can use in TLS > 1.0 > and 1.1, but we also want people to move away from them. > > This problem is probably solvable by marking the registry as Not > Recommended, but I wondered if anyone had other thoughts on this topic? > > > 5289 applies to TLS 1.0, 1.1, and 1.2. It seems strange to uplift a bunch > of ciphersuites for 1.2 just as we’re publishing TLS 1.3 which obsoletes > 5246. > > > TLS 1.2 will be in use for a while unless major problems are found, so > it's worthwhile IMO. > > > I understand that. I’m wondering what message we are trying to convey by > publishing or uplifting a full standard for a now-obsolete protocol. > > The Internet works just fine on proposed standards (or even Internet > Drafts) > > Yoav > >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
