Re: [TLS] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate-11: (with COMMENT)

["Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[e-mail]>]

LGTM.

Regards,
Rob


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>
> Sent: 19 January 2021 14:28
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]>; The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [TLS] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-tls-
> oldversions-deprecate-11: (with COMMENT)
> 
> 
> Hiya,
> 
> On 19/01/2021 11:05, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message----- From: iesg <[e-mail]> On
> >> Behalf Of Stephen Farrell Sent: 12 January 2021 21:35 To: Rob
> >> Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]>; The IESG <[e-mail]> Cc:
> >> [e-mail];
> >> [e-mail]; [e-mail] Subject: Re: [TLS] Robert
> >> Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-tls- oldversions-deprecate-11:
> >> (with COMMENT)
> >>
> >>
> >> Hiya,
> >>
> >> On 12/01/2021 18:14, Robert Wilton via Datatracker wrote:
> >>> Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
> >>> draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate-11: No Objection
> >>>
> >>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to
> >>> all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free
> >>> to cut this introductory paragraph, however.)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-
> >> criteria.html
> >>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found
> >>> here:
> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> COMMENT:
> >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> Thank you for purging the old versions of TLS.
> >>
> >> Thanks for trudging through it! :-)
> >>
> >>>
> >>> There is one sentence in the abstract that I found surprising (if
> >>> it is
> >> right).
> >>>
> >>> The abstract states: "TLSv1.2 has been the recommended version
> >>> for IETF protocols since 2008, providing sufficient time to
> >>> transition away from older versions."
> >>>
> >>> Should this be "minimum recommended version"?  Otherwise, I
> >>> don't
> >> understand
> >>> why the recommended version of TLS is 1.2 rather than 1.3 (given
> >>> that
> >> the TLS
> >>> 1.2 RFC is marked as obsolete).
> >>
> >> I see what you mean.
> >>
> >> I guess s/has been/became/ would do it? The point isn't so much
> >> what the current recommended version is/was but more that it's been
> >> a dozen years since it was TLSv1.1.
> > [RW]
> >
> > Yes, s/has been/became/ helps, but I still think that it implies that
> > TLV 1.2 is the current recommended version of TLS.
> >
> > Perhaps something along the lines of:
> >
> > TLSv1.2 became the recommended version for IETF protocols in 2008
> > (now obsoleted by TLSv1.3 in 2018), providing sufficient time to
> > transition away from older versions."
> 
> Sure. I did more or less that in the repo - [1] with
> diff vs. -11 at [2]
> 
> Cheers,
> S.
> 
> [1]
> https://github.com/tlswg/oldversions-deprecate/blob/master/draft-ietf-tls-
> oldversions-deprecate.txt
> [2]
> https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate-
> 11.txt&url2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/tlswg/oldversions-
> deprecate/master/draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate.txt
> 
> >
> > Regards, Rob
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Cheers, S.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list
> >>> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
> >>>