Adrian: TLS 1.2 does not have early data, and the algorithm registries arefor TLS 1.2 and TLS 1.3 are separate, o I do not think there is confusion. That said, I do not object to adding the phrase.
Russ > On Oct 13, 2022, at 5:42 PM, Adrian Farrel <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > Thanks for kicking off work to get PCEP able to work with TLS1.3. > > This is important. > > However... :-) > > I think it would be helpful to clarify that statements about what > implementations must or must not do (etc.) should be scoped as > "implementations of this document." That is, you are not constraining PCEP > implementations in general, and I don't even thing you are constraining > TLS1.2 PCEP implementations. Well, if it was your intent to do otherwise, > you really need to be clear that you are updating the base specs, but I hope > you're not. > > Further, I am worried about the use of draft-ietf-tls-rfc8446bis as a > normative reference. I understand that the long term intention is that that > draft will obsolete RFC 8446, but it seems to be moving slowly (if at all - > it has expired). I think that implementers wanting to apply TLS1.3 to their > PCEP code will want to pick up TLS1.3 implementations that are stable (i.e., > based on RFCs). Now, by the time this draft gets to completion, it is quite > possible that 8446bis will have completed, and the draft can be updated to > reference it and pick any additional points it makes. On the other hand, if > this draft makes it to the RFC Editor queue before 8446bis is complete, I > don't think you'd want it to sit around, and a subsequent bis can be made > when 8446bis becomes an RFC. > > What do you think? > > Cheers, > Adrian > > _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
