Re: [TLS] WGLC for "Deprecating TLSv1.0 and TLSv1.1"

"Martin Thomson" <> Thu, 09 May 2019 06:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3A4912011A for <>; Wed, 8 May 2019 23:41:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=d3G9Qs4C; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=tzqs5gv9
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nHWTBDvrr0vM for <>; Wed, 8 May 2019 23:41:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F2782120114 for <>; Wed, 8 May 2019 23:41:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal []) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 193EA346 for <>; Thu, 9 May 2019 02:41:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from imap2 ([]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 09 May 2019 02:41:15 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:from:to :subject:content-type; s=fm2; bh=dccMHKT+ml2Q2ZOHDvni85HrJiNMdFe 2+Wpe1C+bGZs=; b=d3G9Qs4CHv82+da+KNdBGJ6A3bJhZOxacXKI8XnPzWVRpE9 sW8S2YWSFF9QDPbxD3WmU+LCiqxi/amaPsF3HPS9Gfsfu4/n/tcebJDzw9JHjFRE 1FSLp9HoIIr6R+MqVtECbZgQk/388qNCLeOgE0V61L3BXXFcWBbJ4lkAHiDE4s7x R5Wv+Yu2wj2MbGlC7fh8A57gvYEBwcSaD7zyXFfLx5oQajLY+ksNMx4WG5tU+TNy RYNKExZ9GTglKqEgFlXa9sO8/vUoUglXYaYAxe3qM/SR7e1rFAGEZXWS3xj8tFn3 Kd1tiYtoSKCea4skBR+jj/Av+Pp3y3QW0HpU64w==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=dccMHK T+ml2Q2ZOHDvni85HrJiNMdFe2+Wpe1C+bGZs=; b=tzqs5gv9wPLT7qLMrtY8Ez IHpz2pBOOIkX4zt15D88Jre5FtV4uaXTYCwu484V81V8Nt9caN3rymkOdxz3+bp0 chm34g7IRa/JBb203+JtqOWKriTtBjT5yJxa/LbrhQrShiB5Va81XeD0kr+folIe Y7EjgNg6sgm7wZOlUofh5Z3G8jQ5rOupQXBDDNYfeqzuBYmLWsDGLZWdlIKr71+D SRld5SekXc0jScy07/tsJjBDNoRQezKLMi1jBN0q4yCxCmYiOaD/+qdSQaim1/Jb wRuGts8xtoRrnI/4x29uKn8/m2MqSGMS4BXVq4lwc9ZJFSVVOyowgabFu2Lv7low ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:isvTXGdGVqdKWbOyKKmnTT7Ac1s3MvlMm6-wSAldndjwYE9GCiOqGQ>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduuddrkeeggddutdelucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefofgggkfgjfhffhffvufgtsehttd ertderredtnecuhfhrohhmpedfofgrrhhtihhnucfvhhhomhhsohhnfdcuoehmtheslhho figvnhhtrhhophihrdhnvghtqeenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepmhhtsehloh ifvghnthhrohhphidrnhgvthenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:isvTXExP8hNJjQjTWK6LK5RP5Ai42Lhod7ZxGDbUOpURMm9UjwY67A> <xmx:isvTXM-OKlPraqzYqChrJKYp0f_4-eSw4UrvG8ms_JC8eBmdtcE44Q> <xmx:isvTXGkwLzFCs0EV2f1eDT2OCOfdQqi91uD_yhAcpT7hVLqvrhi0nQ> <xmx:isvTXDMBq0YY3H_yd5ZrvRWsojBE1Zkz0XJPJQZVIohnbr8z4ertmw>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 258897C6D9; Thu, 9 May 2019 02:41:14 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: Webmail Interface
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.1.6-449-gfb3fc5a-fmstable-20190430v1
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Thu, 09 May 2019 02:41:15 -0400
From: "Martin Thomson" <>
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [TLS] WGLC for "Deprecating TLSv1.0 and TLSv1.1"
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." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 May 2019 06:41:18 -0000

On Thu, May 9, 2019, at 16:09, Peter Gutmann wrote:
> You could just say "use SHA-2", which covers the whole family.  Now in
> practice "SHA-2" means "SHA-256" so it'll be the same as saying SHA-256
> directly, but the more generic SHA-2 leaves it open to interpretation for the
> three people who use something other than SHA-256.

Though I don't think we'll see it happen any time soon, I don't think we want to completely close the door on new hash functions.  SHA-3 might be dead, but that doesn't mean we won't eventually be motivated to move to another one.

>From memory, we see a non-trivial amount of SHA-384, though that might just be in its pairing with AES-256-GCM.  It's routinely paired with P-384, which we do get a little bit of.  We even have P-521 in quantities large enough that we can't turn it off, which is likely paired with SHA-512.