[TLS] Re: Adoption call for TLS 1.2 Update for Long-term Support

[Rob Sayre <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

It doesn't make sense to me, especially considering the WG has adopted

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-tls12-frozen/

TLS 1.3 is 6+ years old, for those counting.

Ekr wrote:
> There's nothing stopping people deploying this if they want to and in
fact there
> is already a code point assigned. However, the TLS WG should not take up
this work.

That sounds right to me.

thanks,
Rob


On Fri, Nov 22, 2024 at 9:02 AM Andrew Campling
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 22, 2024 at 16:46 Watson Ladd <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > How on earth would providing another incompatible set of suggestions
> help? No matter what text was in there it would still raise the question of
> what people should be doing.
>
>
>
> Hi Watson
>
> You may of course not believe that this is a problem or that it is not
> something that the working group needs to solve.  I wouldn’t suggest
> starting with “another incompatible set of suggestions” unless you believe
> that the previous efforts were not useful(?).
>
>
>
> If you agree with the previous post from Yaron that there is a problem
> then it seems reasonable to come up with a proposal on how best to address
> the current lack of clarity.  One way to do that is to incorporate updated
> text into the TLS-LTS draft, and any others that touch on TLS 1.2, making
> sure that it communicates clearly to implementers and others the relative
> positions of TLS 1.2, TLS-LTS and TLS 1.3 with reference RFC 9325 and any
> other relevant documents etc.  Using this consistently from now on ought to
> help.
>
>
>
> There are other ways to address this problem if you agree that it needs to
> be addressed.
>
>
>
>
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>