Salz, Rich <rs...@akamai.com> wrote:
mcr> But, MUST do TLS 1.3 implies (to me), do *NOT* (refuse to) do TLS 1.2.
mcr> The only way to allow (MAY) TLS 1.2, is for TLS 1.3 to be SHOULD.
> People who believe that have not read the draft, or forgotten
> something. It’s pretty clear, appearing in the very next paragraph
> aftrer the MUST TLS 1.3 paragraph:
> If deployment considerations are a concern, the protocol MAY specify
> TLS 1.2 as an additional, non-default option.
So, really, my document is already compliant with that statement.
(which is what I thought from the beginning. and that the AD was overreaching)
====
BTW: A MUST with an otherwise clause, is to me, a SHOULD.
(Also, what's a non-default option. Either it can be negotiated, so it's
on by default, or it won't be negotiated, so it's really off.)
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Uta mailing list -- uta@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to uta-le...@ietf.org
