Re: [TLS] how close are we?

Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com> Wed, 12 October 2016 03:31 UTC

Return-Path: <sean@sn3rd.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 244451296BC for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 20:31:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=sn3rd.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p50SB8oNOkED for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 20:31:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x22f.google.com (mail-qk0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3650212949D for <tls@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 20:31:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id z190so14989459qkc.2 for <tls@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 20:31:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sn3rd.com; s=google; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=hKZHR/Vf8EY2QsJVJhtz0OtERHAabJF7k1SHeyXRfSI=; b=GtID8Bh93oRfeope+gKXbR90i+oroBXUStkvKCurOliYjbf859IRHIKAiaDi534rXE XpEskn5AzbvkZm3BKjtcAxGa02r4qQtapDS7yeun41GXo5+6USr+w5eb33ZLcDDEt6l8 6EYdATSVnma+c4k6U/lYRTY7wUrib+1uEwqB8=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=hKZHR/Vf8EY2QsJVJhtz0OtERHAabJF7k1SHeyXRfSI=; b=QV6+gWxMsBHjU/knyUsFKDwRtq1AnW8LYT/g7UPtXnUGCFAHkXLHPjcjtL6fsRp6NS 0gh/9sMj/hIKd0SkCJK2NTPnNonhA4C33btPXn6Vqc76AR9bktkjAaX8deaxzHb+trx+ 8lB7mvEoWmQgdocQkmwqdAp2Ec+t+AHIWxZRE0bP9FuSkI9zuIsw7y+oxdHz4rEtYt/Z rcy8ORFR8cXK5xvTsTwArAkdHhK4lnWV+B4x7Q7QiWsX0ULCryZxtz4p76NgohmFPi6j xuk0InUCI7h93mAOQU6g9J+FPM/X72dvP6bvOG65ra5n02OvEwip7MVqUvCdH7uhZW9N C+zQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RkYnIMXXsDHHjanrSAUU3WCgRCxPPVoKcfPCYfziCvf86HHq3rR20BvkvRSriVc7Q==
X-Received: by 10.55.209.207 with SMTP id o76mr5920826qkl.276.1476243072919; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 20:31:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.16.0.112] ([96.231.229.241]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k74sm2181152qkl.14.2016.10.11.20.31.11 for <tls@ietf.org> (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 11 Oct 2016 20:31:12 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>
In-Reply-To: <1476242482704.52897@cs.auckland.ac.nz>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 23:31:10 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <153BDDAA-BB61-4756-8700-0DDFFEED4639@sn3rd.com>
References: <5c8856d676684aa189919fb1c59bfdb8@usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com> <CY1PR15MB07781839CDE058F110E6F95DFFDD0@CY1PR15MB0778.namprd15.prod.outlook.com> <1476242482704.52897@cs.auckland.ac.nz>
To: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/p5Vv90jPuQ7EJah6GU9XAHV_iew>
Subject: Re: [TLS] how close are we?
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tls/>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 03:31:16 -0000

> On Oct 11, 2016, at 23:21, Peter Gutmann <pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
> 
> Xiaoyin Liu <xiaoyin.l@outlook.com> writes:
> 
>> Not directly related to Rich's question, but will we settle the "TLS 1.3 -> TLS 2.0" 
>> discussion (PR #612) before WGLC? Or has this already been closed as "keeping 
>> the current name"?
> 
> The impression I got from the discussion was that most people, or at least those who
> contributed, wanted 2.0, or at least something other than 1.3.  I was kinda surprised 
> to see it still being referred to as 1.3.
> 
> Peter.

It’s still in the queue.  The chairs felt it best to focus on the open technical issues.

spt