Re: [TLS] TLS1.2 vs TLS1.0

[Robert Cragie <[e-mail]>]

+1. TLS 1.2 also opens up use of the AEAD ciphers.

Robert

On 20/05/2013 22:43, Paul Duffy wrote:
> Hi Ulrich
>
> IMO mandate TLS 1.2 (as SEP2 did).
>
> For all of the reasons you mentioned below.
>
> With OpenADR, we are talking about an app that impacts the electric grid.
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> On 5/20/2013 4:47 PM, Ulrich Herberg wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have not followed this WG, so please forgive me if a similar
>> question has already been discussed.
>>
>> I am participating in another SDO on a standard for automated Demand
>> Response, called OpenADR (www.openadr.org), an application for the
>> smart grid. The application is basically a web service, exchanging XML
>> over HTTP over public networks, and using TLS (with RSA and ECDSA /
>> SHA1 ciphers for TLS 1.0 and SHA2 for TLS1.2). Currently, the draft
>> allows for TLS1.0 and 1.1, but recommends using 1.2 (and requires
>> vendors to provide a migration plan in case TLS1.0 is obsoleted) .
>> TLS1.0 and 1.1 RFCs have been obsoleted by the IETF; but I am not sure
>> about the best current practice. Is it absolutely discouraged to use
>> them? The argument in the OpenADR alliance is that many libraries and
>> programming languages do not support TLS1.2, so they recommend to
>> start the handshake with 1.2 and then downgrade - if required - to
>> 1.0. I read that NIST disallows SHA1 after 2013; which would also
>> affect TLS1.0, which does not support SHA2.
>>
>> What would be your recommendation in this case? Mandate TLS1.2 and
>> disallow TLS1.0? Or just strongly recommend ("SHOULD") to use TLS1.2
>> and SHA2 ciphers, and otherwise to use TLS1.0?
>>
>> Best regards
>> Ulrich
>> _______________________________________________
>> TLS mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>