Alan DeKok <al...@deployingradius.com> wrote:
> I have some questions for the people who propose making TLS 1.3 a SHOULD
for new protocols:
Our (ANIMA) document already has TLS 1.3 as a SHOULD (and the ancedent document
from
2021 said the same thing). I was asked to make it a MUST, because
uta-require-tls13.
Vendors violate MUSTs all the time; customers can use RFCs as big hammers to
insist. It really does happen.
But, MUST do TLS 1.3 implies (to me), do *NOT* (refuse to) do TLS 1.2.
The only way to allow (MAY) TLS 1.2, is for TLS 1.3 to be SHOULD.
--
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
