Re: [TLS] Comments on various things on agenda (Was: Re: TLS Interim

On Mar 10, 2015 10:19 PM, "Peter Gutmann" <pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
>
> Ilari Liusvaara <ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi> writes:
>
> >Backwards compatibility:
> >
> >Is this about what is needed for compatiblity with past TLS versions?
>
> TLS 1.3, which I've already pointed out several times has so little
backwards
> compatibility that it should be called TLS 2.0, doesn't need to be
hamstrung
> with retaining stuff from the other TLS 1.x versions, for example the
totally
> pointless:
>
> >- The first byte of record header needs to remain subprotocol id (for
> >  muxing TLS with other stuff)
>
> (and many others).  It's already so different even to TLS 1.2 that
there's no
> point in retaining some crufty old artefact of SSL 3.0 just because we've
> always done it this way.  If there's a feature that's useful or important
to
> the functioning of the protocol then by all means include it, but there's
no
> point in dragging along old protocol misfeatures "for backwards
compatibility"
> when so much else has changed incompatibly.

I agree. We should focus in simplifying implementations of TLS 1.3 and TLS
1.2, and it seems that this means assuming minimal (read none)  code reuse,
and focusing on simplifying TLS 1.3 on its own terms.

>
> Peter.
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls

Re: [TLS] Comments on various things on agenda (Was: Re: TLS Interim - update and agenda)