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

[Sean Turner <[e-mail]>]

This chairs discussed this and we agree that there does not appear that we have consensus to adopt the TLS 1.2 Update for Long-term Support I-D.

The chairs would like to note that the WGLC for TLS 1.2 is in Feature Freeze (draft-ietf-tls-tls12-frozen) is about to happen shortly. We do not believe that progressing TLS 1.2 is in Feature Freeze should affect efforts by Peter, if he so chooses, to publish TLS 1.2 Update for Long-term Support I-D either by AD sponsor or through the ISE; we will note that the code point is already assigned (and has been for years).

spt

> On Nov 5, 2024, at 11:25, Sean Turner <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> REQUEST: Let’s not rehash all the context.  It is provided for those who might not remember or those that were not around for the duration.
> 
> CONTEXT: Way back in 2016 after the WG had embarked on developing TLS 1.3, Peter Gutmann suggested that another way to “fix” TLS was to specify a version of TLS that indicates a “known-good config drawn from the maybe 10 extension-RFCs”; see [0].  Peter submitted his “TLS 1.2 Update for Long-term Support”; see [1]. There was some list discussion; see [2]. Peter asked us about adopting the I-D; see [3]. He made changes based on that feedback; see [4]. At IETF 98, the WG discussed adopting this I-D and the sense of the room was to not adopt the I-D; see [5]. Progress on this document was paused while the WG worked on TLS 1.3. Once RFC 8447 was published, a code point was assigned for the “tls-lts” extensions; see [6] and [7]. Now that we are looking to publish Feature Freeze for TLS 1.2 [8][9] we want to make sure that the working group sentiment has not changed over time so we are running an adoption call for TLS-LTS. 
> 
> MESSAGE: This message is to judge consensus on whether there is support to adopt TLS 1.2 Update for Long-term Support; see [1].  If you support adoption and are willing to review and contribute text, please send a message to the list.  If you do not support adoption of this draft, please send a message to the list and indicate why.  This call will close on November X, 2024. 
> 
> Thanks,
> spt
> 
> [0] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/Lr7VwcPCjzDJelUTRTIUJf_8-ww/ 
> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gutmann-tls-lts/ 
> [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/r4w75rooy-r8Ky-xXAUoslYTL_U/ 
> [3] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/6tBftKBmxYz_wUcq79_zH8yDTQk/ 
> [4] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/aw9BOS4HJ9uum0snEZqSuKA4BYw/
> [5] https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/98/materials/minutes-98-tls-00 
> [6] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls-reg-review/bP84S3tHSG9gAmc45CLTjpiA0z8/
> [7] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/xmhnVQTckDmUkoxhx4wx1bfpYXM/ 
>   Thanks to Peter because he helped us iron out the
>   wrinkles in the tls-reg-review process.
> [8] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-tls12-frozen/ 
> [9] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/f62yvLL_4mDEsRzAY46L4QLjakU/