-1. The TLS working group, and this document in particular, has consistently ignored the products of the UTA working group. Specifically, RFC 9325 [1] published a mere two years ago is not even referenced in the draft, let alone a comparison made with these deployment recommendations that were made by the very same IETF. (Yes you can hear my frustration coming through). Thanks, Yaron [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9325/ On 20/11/2024, 19:27, "Andrew Campling" <andrew.campling@419.consulting> wrote: +1, especially given the previous discussion on this topic on the list back in 2016. Andrew -----Original Message----- From: Salz, Rich <rs...@akamai.com> Sent: 05 November 2024 19:01 To: Sean Turner <s...@sn3rd.com>; TLS List <tls@ietf.org> Subject: [TLS] Re: Adoption call for TLS 1.2 Update for Long-term Support I strongly support adoption. I do not understand why anyone would be opposed to the IETF making deployment recommendations. I can understand why someone might be bothered by the impliciation that *THIS ONE WAY* is the only way to get long-term support, especially if it's seen to contradict our encouragement of TLS 1.3. But that is an editorial issue that can be easily fixed. I would like to see this adopted, a short change cycle, and then advanced in the same cluster with our TLS 1.2 is frozen document. _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org |
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
