On Tue, Nov 5, 2024 at 8:25 AM Sean Turner <s...@sn3rd.com> wrote: > REQUEST: Let’s not rehash all the context. It is provided for those who > might not remember or those that were not around for the duration. > > CONTEXT: Way back in 2016 after the WG had embarked on developing TLS 1.3, > Peter Gutmann suggested that another way to “fix” TLS was to specify a > version of TLS that indicates a “known-good config drawn from the maybe 10 > extension-RFCs”; see [0]. Peter submitted his “TLS 1.2 Update for > Long-term Support”; see [1]. There was some list discussion; see [2]. Peter > asked us about adopting the I-D; see [3]. He made changes based on that > feedback; see [4]. At IETF 98, the WG discussed adopting this I-D and the > sense of the room was to not adopt the I-D; see [5]. Progress on this > document was paused while the WG worked on TLS 1.3. Once RFC 8447 was > published, a code point was assigned for the “tls-lts” extensions; see [6] > and [7]. Now that we are looking to publish Feature Freeze for TLS 1.2 > [8][9] we want to make sure that the working group sentiment has not > changed over time so we are running an adoption call for TLS-LTS. > > MESSAGE: This message is to judge consensus on whether there is support to > adopt TLS 1.2 Update for Long-term Support; see [1]. If you support > adoption and are willing to review and contribute text, please send a > message to the list. If you do not support adoption of this draft, please > send a message to the list and indicate why. This call will close on > November X, 2024. >
I do not support adoption, but do not view it as what they call an "end run" around the WG. So, it would be fine to go to the ISE I think. If it gets some traction, the WG can take it up again. It's not a permanent decision. thanks, Rob
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
