I don't really feel strongly about this issue, but the document left me feeling a little lost concerning ECDH.
I think documents should always explain the concerns around an RFC 2119 "SHOULD" or "SHOULD NOT". It's fine if "there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when the particular behavior is acceptable or even useful", but what are they? thanks, Rob On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 10:30 AM Joseph Salowey <j...@salowey.net> wrote: > At IETF 119 we had discussion on how to mark the ciphersuites deprecated > by draft-ietf-tls-deprecate-obsolete-kex in the IANA Registry. At the > meeting there was support for ('D' means discouraged): > > RSA ciphersuites should be marked with a "D" > FFDH ciphersuites should be marked with a "D" > FFDHE ciphersuites should be marked with a "D" > ECDH ciphersuites should be marked with a "D" > > This aligns with the deprecation intent of the draft. The draft states > ECDH are a SHOULD NOT instead of a MUST NOT, but the sentiment was they > should be generally discouraged. > > Please respond with any comments on this proposal by April 30,2024. > > Thanks, > > Sean, Deirdre and Joe > _______________________________________________ > 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