Re: [Uta] [art] [Last-Call] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-uta-rfc7525bis-09

Ok done

On Fri, Jul 15, 2022, 10:56 PM Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 10:47 AM Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 10:30:55AM -0700, Rob Sayre wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 7:19 AM Cullen Jennings via Datatracker <
>> > noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > >  I see no evidence of any
>> > > discussion of how that will work out for things that use HTTP but are
>> not
>> > > browsers.
>> > >
>> >
>> > There just aren't that many implementations on the client side. Not
>> only do
>> > you have to implement all of the HTTP versions and TLS, but you have to
>> > maintain all of the PKI stuff as well. Obviously, people do it, but they
>> > are not the ones that need to read this document.
>> >
>> > If the TLS library is not one also used by the OS and a browser (NSS,
>> > SecureTransport, etc), it's probably OpenSSL. I don't think this is an
>> > oversight in the document.
>>
>> I think we need to be really careful with what we're considering as the
>> relevant population of clients when making statements like this,
>
>
> Sorry, I tried to leave a caveat in there for exactly this concern, but
> that seems to have failed.
>
>
>> Mbed TLS (Apache licensed, just like current OpenSSL) is much more
>> appropriate in those environments,
>>
>
> I don't think people that write programs like that will get a lot out of
> this document. I think they're not the audience (they will drop TLS 1.2 or
> support TLS 1.1 if they want/need to).
>
> thanks,
> Rob
>
> _______________________________________________
> art mailing list
> art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art
>