IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] Confirming consensus: TLS1.3->TLS*

Filippo Valsorda <ml@filippo.io> Sun, 20 November 2016 19:17 UTC

Return-Path: <ml@filippo.io>
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 BFB931297AC for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Nov 2016 11:17:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=filippo.io header.b=HJAwKARf; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=IwVCPUlL
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 tVoKoCHSA8eJ for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Nov 2016 11:17:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 94D52129481 for <tls@ietf.org>; Sun, 20 Nov 2016 11:17:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5ADA2068F for <tls@ietf.org>; Sun, 20 Nov 2016 14:17:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: from web1 ([10.202.2.211]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 20 Nov 2016 14:17:37 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=filippo.io; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:message-id :mime-version:subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= mesmtp; bh=WPcYnTX+4tJrL7kY7II768TZs8U=; b=HJAwKARfT7r8qwr0IAcok Gt6N5saij0gSKf2/xtE5Pcqf+tlDOIADekMYdECA0P/LwV0IlC0xu+pxs6lWxbw4 rAcisYyl+J8cynJ5KKl1M5IN5JwAXzlpRfRxrHIvCfJ8dsu9+VuabkvPDy+Bop76 P0YBycGlgXPPEy8GHQrTjw=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=WPcYnTX+4tJrL7kY7II768TZs 8U=; b=IwVCPUlLYlJqE0KY54RJr7U6v8hYYF18eo9yerqloTyrXeCdgm4OOdBPI 6GoUT8kMkqHqpbsD8kCVnymhB8u3mYz9aBzvqdB8Tb4GATrgIUlc91yauDCEu1ip mt+2jW+lH0J80Mxlxbs8DixmJGa6ewuSNNmryYNSIDJiyY7P3A=
X-ME-Sender: <xms:0fYxWHa4I_8C0D4U7keyP9f5fmoTYz4Ym05rXOB-HFXPLE_7A3hOYw>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 99) id ADACFAA6AD; Sun, 20 Nov 2016 14:17:37 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <1479669457.3015489.793828961.121B4C8F@webmail.messagingengine.com>
From: Filippo Valsorda <ml@filippo.io>
To: tls@ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface - ajax-461bce03
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2016 14:17:37 -0500
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/OcYNDWD2lrgYs0798KcvNr8RxRM>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Confirming consensus: TLS1.3->TLS*
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Sun, 20 Nov 2016 19:17:40 -0000

I'm definitely for 1.3.

I get where 4 is coming from, but 1.2 is not going anywhere soon, and we
spent the last 10 years training people that the high-numbered one is
bad, and that the 1.x ones are cool.

I really don't want to have the following conversation, with the exact
same people the proponents of 4 are trying to help:

"You only support 1.2, you should support 4"
"Oh, wasn't it that weird other way around where the high one was
broken?"
"Ah, no, 4 is the latest and greatest"
"Oh, ok, then I should support only 4 and 3?"
"Nono, 3 is terribly broken."
"Oh, so only 4? Do all clients support it?"
"Uh, you should keep 1.2"
"Ah, so 1.2 is better than 3 but worse than 4?"
"Yeah... I'm sorry"

"4 is great, 3 is bad, 1.2 is good" is harder than "3 is bad, 1.2 is
good" was, and harder than "3 is bad, 1.2 is good, 1.3 is great" would
be.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email