Re: [TLS] TLS 1.2

In message <20050827003010.19815285E3@sierra.rtfm.com>, Eric Rescorla writes:
>Folks,
>
>I'd like to start a discussion on whether we should be thinking
>about a TLS 1.2 that was more oriented towards newer hash 
>functions. Obviously, we're not at a point where there's
>a crisis yet but it doesn't hurt to be prepared.
>
>Steve Bellovin's and my take on this can be found at:
>
>http://www.educatedguesswork.org/movabletype/archives/2005/07/deploying_a_new.
>html
>
>Thinking ahead, if we get much list discussion we should probably
>plan to have some time in Vancouver...
>

Obviously, I agree that we should do something...  

At some point, we *will* need new hash functions.  That's probably 
years in the future, but realistically what we do will take years to 
deploy as well.  I figure 2 years for the spec to appear as an RFC 
(wg time, IESG time, RFC editor queues, etc.), another 1-2 years for 
vendors to design, code, and test, and 3-5 years for deployment.

		--Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb

_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls