On 20/04/15 17:34, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 05:08:45PM +0100, Stephen Farrell wrote: > >> On 20/04/15 17:01, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > >>> Should I cut another version with editorial changes based on your >>> review prior to IETF LC? >> >> I guess that's one for the WG chairs. > > OK. Any word from the chairs then? > >> But I don't think we bottomed out on the TLS versioning thing and >> the relationship with recent related BCPs did we? > > I don't expect much/any further discussion. I am ready to replace > all mention of SSL 3.0 with TLS 1.0. Given that the protocol is > opportunistic, requiring anything stronger is I think counter-productive. > > Can we move forward with s/SSL 3.0/TLS 1.0/g? This modifies just > the first paragraph of 8.1 and is not a big deal. > > I don't recall seeing any other recent BCPs at issue in this thread.
One could encourage adhering to the generic UTA BCP though as well right? If the WG don't pushback at me (and please do if I'm wrong), I think s/SSL 3.0/TLS 1.0/g and adding a recommendation to follow the UTA BCP would be just fine to move forward. (I'm ok if the UTA BCP is a SHOULD or RECOMMENDED and could live with a non-2119 type recommendation either.) S. > _______________________________________________ dane mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
