I had to go look too. One day I'll have all manner of important stuff memorized.
Deb On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 1:10 PM Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Rich and Deb ! > > > On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 10:22 PM Salz, Rich <rs...@akamai.com> wrote: > >> I should probably have a tattoo made somewhere that lists the BCP 14 >> words. As WILL NOT has no standing, I will gladly change it to lowercase. >> Thank you. >> >> >> >> *From: *Deb Cooley <debcool...@gmail.com> >> *Date: *Tuesday, April 1, 2025 at 12:30 PM >> *To: *Salz, Rich <rsalz=40akamai....@dmarc.ietf.org> >> *Cc: *Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.i...@gmail.com>, The IESG <i...@ietf.org>, >> draft-ietf-tls-tls12-fro...@ietf.org < >> draft-ietf-tls-tls12-fro...@ietf.org>, tls-cha...@ietf.org < >> tls-cha...@ietf.org>, tls@ietf.org <tls@ietf.org>, s...@sn3rd.com < >> s...@sn3rd.com> >> *Subject: *Re: Ketan Talaulikar's No Objection on >> draft-ietf-tls-tls12-frozen-07: (with COMMENT) >> >> I think the question may be why 'WILL NOT' vice 'will not'. . . . >> especially since 'will' and 'will not' isn't listed in BCP 14 as 'special'. >> will not is just as normative as WILL NOT without the BCP >> >> ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart >> >> *This Message Is From an External Sender * >> >> This message came from outside your organization. >> >> >> >> ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd >> >> I think the question may be why 'WILL NOT' vice 'will not'.... especially >> since 'will' and 'will not' isn't listed in BCP 14 as 'special'. >> >> >> >> will not is just as normative as WILL NOT without the BCP 14 baggage.... >> >> >> >> Deb >> >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 10:59 AM Salz, Rich <rsalz= >> 40akamai....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> Work on post-quantum cryptography for TLS 1.2 SHOULD NOT be undertaken >> (see Section 4) in the IETF and anyone wishing to deploy post-quantum >> cryptography is expected to use TLS 1.3 (or newer). Related work MAY be >> taken up by the TLS WG consensus in exceptional scenarios. >> >> >> >> The consensus of the WG is “WILL NOT”. That is clear and more definitive >> than SHOULD. The last sentence seems superfluous given the early mention of >> “only security issues.” The WG also discussed the “or later” construct and >> decided against it since we don’t know what 1.3-next will have. Taken >> together, that leaves us with the current wording. >> >> >> >> BCP14 keywords are recognized industry-wide (not just within IETF). IMHO >> it would be helpful if the message is clear using those keywords. I'll >> leave this to my SEC AD colleagues :-) >> >> >> >> Sure. >> >> >> >>
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
