I would be more inclined to rephrase the text so that it reflects what we think is ideal rather than what we think is non-ideal. I proposed three edits to encourage to move to - or at least consider moving to TLS 1.3, while still leaving some place for room to stay with TLS 1.2.
Yours, Daniel On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 1:12 PM Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote: > 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> wrote: > >> >> >> On 9/26/19, 11:51 PM, "Martin Thomson" <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 >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls >> > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > TLS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
