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

Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com> Fri, 22 November 2024 17:14 UTC

Return-Path: <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F8EFC1DA1EE for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2024 09:14:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.106 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MGxKpVWy-Ptz for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2024 09:14:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm1-x330.google.com (mail-wm1-x330.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::330]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB3F6C1519A0 for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2024 09:06:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm1-x330.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-4315abed18aso20573115e9.2 for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2024 09:06:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1732295189; x=1732899989; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=mUJIibsm5S1Ee1/GAm3Anbhx18bGS9Rx1XTtxa1nep8=; b=h02QPRuzDQZT1ZTLAYl235sY3jxaEnIEAV1z86T4ID6ZdmfTukURqVO0GZWvN+r4Ej PCPVuQN7wgXlosNE4WKMl+OpLGwbj5JBbqgovedebFYmIgXv+5pT/w8wLHUhCWM6Ytb6 z+bye0D9H3PqW3S7SCcsYnBor8OHwEeI3lyMzKMCfcGSNpnKeSpwGe8VgnFBkHWFMJ+R jB++caKxStusNYQKXnTzVpvbaGnykBYVoe19G6tcCprbUmq8P6HEmhQc9pVlmZOuKpf+ KFqZqhbveGSW+lZZfGdBRk6oLifJk4xGAaGOUqMNfR0Ctl7jXX6kFKXLJ1PtEa0lIxMh b7MQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1732295189; x=1732899989; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=mUJIibsm5S1Ee1/GAm3Anbhx18bGS9Rx1XTtxa1nep8=; b=Px31pk9ijLujstrYZV44VodhNI8R7jzD4U7UwLFoSWrMAJhDsENcJbb4DKJH/ie0UT OySXgdETZwrdj2yOh5zRaCgJhx43+VQ8Iy+XPBe3R3p51gsgzvupOTKcijfdL5eHTU1k 8xSCNFA2c7YgEOTrOyDAKeg0sA8rZi7VsyJHTMVLG3oAdFNZ2/N8umr4WKV6HZlihCSW 5p8GXYh3V8kd8hubc8KyrkGlihulTsdxXLYMQkhFBmlNPXNGpO6HjYTkhRxVpUrWJTvO J0HHdZihmMKEDYjV+OJwhS9nPKfjIFcXT2tP/5UKIxNxSCN8EE/RVt3a4J0nx1lPSUTh gHVA==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXPVVCdQM0G9GZ+aXon+pWMfnOGAUolv+Nw0Khg2j8lMMUcFKf7EnyJo+mqXc5TDEOnyi8=@ietf.org
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxlySp18hLwQ50MkC75sL3xqmohMyfu7RXMKSRFsI1xNC3tGqIA 8HuY4ncF0uf1L6InpL8h4p3L9ZgErF/QA94Ksd8za8fOdVaiH3x9pEbv7dvZELOefawsJ5kYA5M 92h0T9LvqwIiz5GyLtYy8O98QhYs=
X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncske1u12qBRTRLtw2ML3f/ip+gXXzTNFxxFQyV3qFAEHxE6osQJB8L1EKnJnMw dxpxDz+gc46VWhnuDffGWk345RNswzGEQ2g==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IH0QFmpDdW0F0ByZlql2K9O5BEs/yfv+UtOgSnXULJRy0224s0VwV0w1lr7lX155KH+mcd52tcHo0gzn5ydzBc=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:3ba7:b0:431:5bb1:f088 with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-433ce4e7535mr29562455e9.29.1732295189261; Fri, 22 Nov 2024 09:06:29 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <278163DF-0CB8-472F-84CB-0B8236FEC7C1@sn3rd.com> <231D5F24-E1AE-4F7C-9860-F6B0FF79D6FF@akamai.com> <CWXP265MB5153A14B88F7E5CC94E9BF9AC2212@CWXP265MB5153.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <67DD955A-3D13-E04F-9398-F5B37786F79A@hxcore.ol> <ME0P300MB0713FDE4AAA6BB169D676391EE232@ME0P300MB0713.AUSP300.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <1A650921-0180-864F-A50B-E385FAC59653@hxcore.ol> <LO2P265MB5160EA88E5389CDE7036F465C2232@LO2P265MB5160.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <CACsn0cnysjWfdftcEF263C=veVgCz7Z7-ejMBXFLC5HhKnurBw@mail.gmail.com> <LO2P265MB516030CFA96A53D211613157C2232@LO2P265MB5160.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <LO2P265MB516030CFA96A53D211613157C2232@LO2P265MB5160.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
From: Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2024 09:06:19 -0800
Message-ID: <CACsn0cm5U6cG9T2Y+t4dgGNWREynB0eoFkDSQChiwoMrnXd51A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrew Campling <andrew.campling@419.consulting>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000066f70a06278367e4"
Message-ID-Hash: Q45TL4B3OZIO6U7GLFN73NMGDMJWT3LT
X-Message-ID-Hash: Q45TL4B3OZIO6U7GLFN73NMGDMJWT3LT
X-MailFrom: watsonbladd@gmail.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-tls.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: TLS List <tls@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [TLS] Re: Adoption call for TLS 1.2 Update for Long-term Support
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/fALXlxom7JhFG-JPgylghH7x0L4>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tls>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:tls-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:tls-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:tls-leave@ietf.org>

On Fri, Nov 22, 2024, 9:01 AM Andrew Campling
<andrew.campling@419.consulting> wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 22, 2024 at 16:46 Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com> 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.
>

That presupposes the matter at hand namely adoption of TLS-LTS and that
it's a good idea.

>
>
>
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
>
>