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, 15 December 2020 15:15 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 4EE483A11D8; Tue, 15 Dec 2020 07:15:38 -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 HQ0OvxnGb2z1; Tue, 15 Dec 2020 07:15:36 -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 4095B3A14AA; Tue, 15 Dec 2020 07:14:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4309CBE2F; Tue, 15 Dec 2020 15:14:32 +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 aJqajz1Rf5Tl; Tue, 15 Dec 2020 15:14:30 +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 882E3BE2C; Tue, 15 Dec 2020 15:14:30 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1608045270; bh=bUBHBjo8AIdfVmccXNbfOzpQiHuVB2xnRRw5X3U36Kw=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=v+fx1P/I4pVTfnT8Lua9sTUwPDfw6qXc65TiVTl/6i7PER3l8aPWlXpbA1yewY3ag LgJ6aha+CdPDq0dB6BmmIQlrhFrmUP4L946T3oQ6QBfwR+xwT+98ZNmcb0IaZSWHyA kksqacbt8FFd4ZLwlpc+pcLjWQkei0MZzLPuKZIk=
To: tom petch <daedulus@btconnect.com>, last-call@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate@ietf.org, tls-chairs@ietf.org, tls@ietf.org
References: <160496076356.8063.5138064792555453422@ietfa.amsl.com> <5FAA69AB.4090802@btconnect.com> <754d1831-e44f-0299-dcd1-24a311e8c442@cs.tcd.ie> <5FAA79E6.4060401@btconnect.com> <57dec4d8-0824-291c-9c13-15627693eb2a@cs.tcd.ie> <0a867fe5-e940-09bd-1764-530479e09e9b@cs.tcd.ie> <5FD79486.5030401@btconnect.com> <5FD8B135.8070704@btconnect.com>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Message-ID: <a8c63fd5-4cd3-a207-7fd6-e4e459755db8@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 15:14:29 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5FD8B135.8070704@btconnect.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="YCOdFKQ1j5WTgFtrhHYmhafVIHtrhR3te"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/MxbRAgoTyveNdhMzqPexcU-iFAI>
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, 15 Dec 2020 15:15:38 -0000

Hiya,

On 15/12/2020 12:51, tom petch wrote:
> 
> I see RFC5953, RFC6353 have been added.  RFC5953 is obsoleted so should 
> it be listed in 1.1 in the list of RFC already obsoleted, the one that 
> start with RFC5101?

Argh/oops:-)

I just posted -11 fixing that.

Thanks,
S.