[TLS] Re: Ketan Talaulikar's No Objection on draft-ietf-tls-tls12-frozen-07: (with COMMENT)

[Deb Cooley <[e-mail]>]

I had to go look too.  One day I'll have all manner of important stuff
memorized.

Deb

On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 1:10 PM Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Thanks Rich and Deb !
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 10:22 PM Salz, Rich <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> I should probably have a tattoo made somewhere that lists the BCP 14
>> words.  As WILL NOT has no standing, I will gladly change it to lowercase.
>> Thank you.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Deb Cooley <[e-mail]>
>> *Date: *Tuesday, April 1, 2025 at 12:30 PM
>> *To: *Salz, Rich <rsalz=[e-mail]>
>> *Cc: *Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>, The IESG <[e-mail]>,
>> [e-mail] <
>> [e-mail]>, [e-mail] <
>> [e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <
>> [e-mail]>
>> *Subject: *Re: Ketan Talaulikar's No Objection on
>> draft-ietf-tls-tls12-frozen-07: (with COMMENT)
>>
>> I think the question may be why 'WILL NOT' vice 'will not'. . . .
>> especially since 'will' and 'will not' isn't listed in BCP 14 as 'special'.
>> will not is just as normative as WILL NOT without the BCP
>>
>> ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
>>
>> *This Message Is From an External Sender *
>>
>> This message came from outside your organization.
>>
>>
>>
>> ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
>>
>> I think the question may be why 'WILL NOT' vice 'will not'.... especially
>> since 'will' and 'will not' isn't listed in BCP 14 as 'special'.
>>
>>
>>
>> will not is just as normative as WILL NOT without the BCP 14 baggage....
>>
>>
>>
>> Deb
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 10:59 AM Salz, Rich <rsalz=
>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Work on post-quantum cryptography for TLS 1.2 SHOULD NOT be undertaken
>> (see Section 4) in the IETF and anyone wishing to deploy post-quantum
>> cryptography is expected to use TLS 1.3 (or newer). Related work MAY be
>> taken up by the TLS WG consensus in exceptional scenarios.
>>
>>
>>
>> The consensus of the WG is “WILL NOT”. That is clear and more definitive
>> than SHOULD. The last sentence seems superfluous given the early mention of
>> “only security issues.” The WG also discussed the “or later” construct and
>> decided against it since we don’t know what 1.3-next will have. Taken
>> together, that leaves us with the current wording.
>>
>>
>>
>> BCP14 keywords are recognized industry-wide (not just within IETF). IMHO
>> it would be helpful if the message is clear using those keywords. I'll
>> leave this to my SEC AD colleagues :-)
>>
>>
>>
>> Sure.
>>
>>
>>
>>