[TLS] Re: Ketan Talaulikar's No Objection on draft-ietf-tls-tls12-frozen-07: (with COMMENT)

[Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Rich and Deb !


On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 10:22 PM Salz, Rich <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I should probably have a tattoo made somewhere that lists the BCP 14
> words.  As WILL NOT has no standing, I will gladly change it to lowercase.
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> *From: *Deb Cooley <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Tuesday, April 1, 2025 at 12:30 PM
> *To: *Salz, Rich <rsalz=[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>, The IESG <[e-mail]>,
> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>,
> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>,
> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Re: Ketan Talaulikar's No Objection on
> draft-ietf-tls-tls12-frozen-07: (with COMMENT)
>
> I think the question may be why 'WILL NOT' vice 'will not'. . . .
> especially since 'will' and 'will not' isn't listed in BCP 14 as 'special'.
> will not is just as normative as WILL NOT without the BCP
>
> ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
>
> *This Message Is From an External Sender *
>
> This message came from outside your organization.
>
>
>
> ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
>
> I think the question may be why 'WILL NOT' vice 'will not'.... especially
> since 'will' and 'will not' isn't listed in BCP 14 as 'special'.
>
>
>
> will not is just as normative as WILL NOT without the BCP 14 baggage....
>
>
>
> Deb
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 10:59 AM Salz, Rich <rsalz=
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
>
> Work on post-quantum cryptography for TLS 1.2 SHOULD NOT be undertaken
> (see Section 4) in the IETF and anyone wishing to deploy post-quantum
> cryptography is expected to use TLS 1.3 (or newer). Related work MAY be
> taken up by the TLS WG consensus in exceptional scenarios.
>
>
>
> The consensus of the WG is “WILL NOT”. That is clear and more definitive
> than SHOULD. The last sentence seems superfluous given the early mention of
> “only security issues.” The WG also discussed the “or later” construct and
> decided against it since we don’t know what 1.3-next will have. Taken
> together, that leaves us with the current wording.
>
>
>
> BCP14 keywords are recognized industry-wide (not just within IETF). IMHO
> it would be helpful if the message is clear using those keywords. I'll
> leave this to my SEC AD colleagues :-)
>
>
>
> Sure.
>
>
>
>