Thank you for the careful reading! > NIT: Should the enumeration of the known deficiencies of TLS 1.2 be contained > in the Introduction? The same considerations are described in Section 6, and > their summation in the Introduction seems to be superfluous.
I'm happy to move item #1 from the intro into section 6 and replace the paragraphs with a pointer. See https://github.com/richsalz/draft-use-tls13/pull/4 > NIT: the assertion in section 3 that "TLS applications will need to migrate to > post-quantum cryptography" is ddependent on the expectation of the lifetime of > the integrity of the encrypted object. The current advice on the immediate > need > to use PQC is based on an integrity lifetime of 20 years.I would feel better > if > the sentence read "many TLD applications..." I don't understand. TLS is generally more about privacy of communications rather than the integrity of the content. Are you conflating this with object signing and encryption (JOSE, CMS, PGP, etc)? > NIT: Section 4: "As a counter example, the Usage Profile for DNS over TLS > [DNSTLS] specifies TLS 1.2 as the default, while also allowing TLS 1.3." I > fail > to appreciate the rationale for including this - the text is careful to note > that this applies to new protocols and DNS over TLS is not a new protocol at > this state. We thought it worthwhile to point to a counter-example from previous specs, but if it is confusing, I can remove it. I would like to ask the WG to weigh in before doing so. _______________________________________________ Uta mailing list -- uta@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to uta-le...@ietf.org
