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

["Martin Thomson" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Kathleen, these look like good changes.   

Nits in the proposed BCP195 section: Lose the "p" in mpost and s/off of/on/

On Fri, May 3, 2019, at 01:12, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:
> Thank you for your feedback in this review. Responses inline as to how 
> I propose it is addressed:
> 
> On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 12:16 AM Martin Thomson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Section 1.1 doesn't say *how* those listed documents are updated. Might pay to include a few works on how.
> 
> Thank you, that was helpful feedback. I changed the introduction text 
> as follows:
> OLD:
> This document updates these RFCs that normatively reference TLSv1.0 or 
> TLSv1.1 or DTLS1.0 and have not been obsoleted. 
> NEW:
>  This document updates the following RFCs that normatively reference 
> TLSv1.0 or TLSv1.1 or DTLS1.0. The update is to obsolete usage of these 
> older versions. Fallback to these versions are prohibited through this 
> update.
> 
> >  Section 2 can be cut down a lot. The quote from another document is longer than the rest of the text. In many ways, saying that the IETF is moving last is not a great thing to memorialize in RFC, as much as it is useful in an Internet-Draft or in argumentation in support of publication of the doc.
> 
> A bunch has been cut out already, but I propose also cutting out the 
> following text to address your specific point (well taken):
> 1st paragraph and last 2.
> 
> REMOVE:
>  Industry has actively followed guidance provided by NIST and the PCI
>  Council to deprecate TLSv1.0 and TLSv1.1 by June 30, 2018. TLSv1.2
>  should remain a minimum baseline for TLS support at this time.
> 
>  The Canadian government treasury board have also mandated that these
>  old versions of TLS not be used. 
> 
>  Various companies and web sites have announced plans to deprecate
>  these old versions of TLS.
> 
> 
> >  The title of Section 3 could be a bit clearer.
> Proposed: 
> SHA-1 Usage Problematic in TLSv1.0 and TLSv1.1
> 
> If you have a more terse suggestion, please post. I agree this should 
> be more clear.
> > 
> >  It might pay to explain what RFC 7525 is in Section 6. Why does that document warrant special attention over the 70-odd other ones.
> 
> Good point, how about the following text:
> 
> PROPOSED:
> RFC7525 is BCP195, "Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer 
> Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)", is the 
> mpost recent best practice document for implementing TLS and was based 
> off of TLSv1.2. At the time of publication, TLSv1.0 and TLSv1.1 had not 
> yet been deprecated. As such, this document is called out specifically 
> to update text implementing the deprecation recommendations of this 
> document. 
> 
> > 
> >  Otherwise, publish this.
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> I'll continue through the rest of the messages, but may have a delay 
> when tending to other responsibilities. 
> I am putting the proposals into a new version to upload to the git 
> repository.
> 
> Best regards,
> Kathleen
> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  On Sat, Apr 13, 2019, at 09:28, Christopher Wood wrote:
> >  > This is the working group last call for the "Deprecating TLSv1.0 and 
> >  > TLSv1.1” draft available at:
> >  > 
> >  > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate/
> >  > 
> >  > Please review the document and send your comments to the list by April 26, 2019.
> >  > 
> >  > Thanks,
> >  > Chris, Joe, and Sean
> >  > 
> >  > _______________________________________________
> >  > TLS mailing list
> >  > [e-mail]
> >  > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
> >  >
> > 
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  TLS mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Best regards,
> Kathleen