Salz, Rich <rs...@akamai.com> wrote:
> You are not counting a non-updated deployed base (which surprises me,
> given your IOT involvement) and people who will not do the RFC.
I'm told (by an AD) that uta-require-tls13 is supposed to apply to all ends of
a new protocol.
>> An implementation which supports *only* TLS 1.3 will *not* interoperate.
> Good thing that’s not what the draft says.
I think it should say, SHOULD TLS 1.3, with the exception being that a
transition from 1.2 is not possible for that end-point as yet.
That, I think, would be honest, and far more useful.
Anyway, it's much easier to make an RFC a performance specification (a trade
term about RFPs) when the document doesn't depend upon some parties just
ignoring the MUSTs.
--
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
