I could even accept with “, unfortunately” :)
From: Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> Date: Friday, September 27, 2019 at 1:11 PM To: Rich Salz <rs...@akamai.com> Cc: Martin Thomson <m...@lowentropy.net>, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie>, "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [TLS] Lessons learned from TLS 1.0 and TLS 1.1 deprecation Perhaps we could rewrite this text so that it reflects that we think this is non-ideal.? On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 9:16 AM Salz, Rich <rs...@akamai.com<mailto:rs...@akamai.com>> wrote: On 9/26/19, 11:51 PM, "Martin Thomson" <m...@lowentropy.net<mailto:m...@lowentropy.net>> wrote: On Fri, Sep 27, 2019, at 10:52, Stephen Farrell wrote: > >> """The expectation is that TLSv1.2 will continue to be used for > >> many years alongside TLSv1.3.""" > > So is your proposed change to only remove that sentence? > wonder if that change really amounts to a worthwhile thing. > I do. Or I wouldn't have written the email. Do you think that this is a > valuable statement? I think that it says that the IETF lacks confidence in > the suitability of TLS 1.3 as a replacement for TLS 1.2. It is a statement of real-world deployment. I am against removing it. _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org<mailto:TLS@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_tls&d=DwMFaQ&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=4LM0GbR0h9Fvx86FtsKI-w&m=avjlNHHNBfovgxnF47PW747tAzpi2N7ARGWwftm4c8E&s=XdJ1ZBOBiFnJzrTs053x7X1ZFr2OXIQ1aWaqCL3Q_mY&e=>
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
