Re: [TLS] [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> Tue, 10 November 2020 16:43 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59B4F3A0D66; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 08:43:12 -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 HMZg0CBMle2E; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 08:43:10 -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 9F3D73A0AA3; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 08:43:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 266C9BE5C; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 16:43:08 +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 UcE6T5cD73lZ; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 16:43:06 +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 B3B7EBE4D; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 16:43:05 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1605026585; bh=DdekIs/oy5zJOJF/BsrAZmaZ2+eOO7EK47k6YIhuZiw=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=ieynZtRFmy0QGQkJ7udNqqajAx9PfgQkeQbcFtYjiWWKwqczEk3Bf0iPVnaqMf0RH gBUUC3eGC0x7Wq5io18HJ1Sq35Y302sS1E2O5Bg6zsKHeHZud4LVNDTPckup6dK9Na h5h2CZWTwVOF5TSjamJDk85iug9BAN5HsK2kKDJg=
To: Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>, tom petch <daedulus@btconnect.com>
Cc: draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>, TLS Chairs <tls-chairs@ietf.org>, TLS List <tls@ietf.org>
References: <160496076356.8063.5138064792555453422@ietfa.amsl.com> <5FAA69AB.4090802@btconnect.com> <06DD0B0B-1ED8-413D-94B7-796082041923@sn3rd.com>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Message-ID: <d9ad3fe4-a3a3-4a83-0a10-5b2bf989c96a@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2020 16:43:05 +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: <06DD0B0B-1ED8-413D-94B7-796082041923@sn3rd.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="FNcKS2kQy166gzsw6vehb7oVH0IHHNOMR"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/Kbx-Zd1SddZMsh-BC1F5DP_EWFw>
Subject: Re: [TLS] [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate-09.txt> (Deprecating TLSv1.0 and TLSv1.1) to Best Current Practice
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tls/>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2020 16:43:18 -0000


On 10/11/2020 16:35, Sean Turner wrote:
> Sorry for any confusion introduced as a result of this typo. DTLS 1.0
> is RFC4347 not RFC 6347; RFC 6347 is DTLS 1.2.
Ah, mea-culpa then (even if someone else suggested
the change I should've spotted that;-). I'll look
back at the script algorithm in any case as Tom
suggested, just in case.

Cheers,
S.