On Fri, Nov 22, 2024, 9:01 AM Andrew Campling <andrew.campling@419.consulting> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2024 at 16:46 Watson Ladd <watsonbl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > How on earth would providing another incompatible set of suggestions > help? No matter what text was in there it would still raise the question of > what people should be doing. > > > > Hi Watson > > You may of course not believe that this is a problem or that it is not > something that the working group needs to solve. I wouldn’t suggest > starting with “another incompatible set of suggestions” unless you believe > that the previous efforts were not useful(?). > > > > If you agree with the previous post from Yaron that there is a problem > then it seems reasonable to come up with a proposal on how best to address > the current lack of clarity. One way to do that is to incorporate updated > text into the TLS-LTS draft, and any others that touch on TLS 1.2, making > sure that it communicates clearly to implementers and others the relative > positions of TLS 1.2, TLS-LTS and TLS 1.3 with reference RFC 9325 and any > other relevant documents etc. Using this consistently from now on ought to > help. > > > > There are other ways to address this problem if you agree that it needs to > be addressed. > That presupposes the matter at hand namely adoption of TLS-LTS and that it's a good idea. > > > > > Andrew > > > > >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
