IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate-09.txt> (Deprecating TLSv1.0 and TLSv1.1) to Best Current Practice

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Wed, 11 November 2020 14:00 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DF003A1187; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 06:00:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NvrrS7lL5xfX; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 06:00:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A61693A0D97; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 06:00:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8780FBE50; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 14:00:08 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jG2ma_IXcOEy; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 14:00:07 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [10.244.2.119] (95-45-153-252-dynamic.agg2.phb.bdt-fng.eircom.net [95.45.153.252]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D5180BE58; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 14:00:06 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1605103206; bh=TTNrjDBY++41255VfT8H7FM3norduS6QhIBFunquSys=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=KiLgheH8HoPXkHsbha2vcoNtgu7MTvEeJ9xmXgUwthefmg14CfNA71OgU4dx6ReEA QTNcR2DxLlPQESaiqrBeFBVSNUnVZFCb1b4nVyvbBiAKlifSFkYKwT17x9SOC3bi+o lK8/QRDr0B2XZuT8o2nXeSiZ68v1FTDAkb86UE3w=
To: rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org, last-call@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate.all@ietf.org
References: <3b1b02f203d2fa30050807b7459cff0c.squirrel@www.rfc-editor.org>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Message-ID: <da44b66c-efe4-bd3d-f183-01740cbc2c8f@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 14:00:06 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.3.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3b1b02f203d2fa30050807b7459cff0c.squirrel@www.rfc-editor.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="nqa3XnsIvffhzQpXJRuJPpy6s78xZ3AoH"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/1jfr76Iky3V1F0Tlcg5oDm2tanE>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate-09.txt> (Deprecating TLSv1.0 and TLSv1.1) to Best Current Practice
X-BeenThere: last-call@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Last Calls <last-call.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/last-call/>
List-Post: <mailto:last-call@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 14:00:19 -0000

Thanks Adrian - that removes one potential
bureaucratic hoop through which we might
otherwise have had to squirm:-)

Cheers,
S.

On 11/11/2020 13:32, RFC ISE (Adrian Farrel) wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Six of the RFCs that this document proposes to "update" were published on
> the Independent Submission Stream.
> 
> They are: [RFC7562], [RFC6042], [RFC5456], [RFC5024], [RFC4540], and
> [RFC3656]
> 
> Having looked through these RFCs and read the draft, I conclude that the
> updates are appropriate and desirable. The ISE supports this action.
> 
> Thanks,
> Adrian
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email