> On Jan 3, 2024, at 17:13, Paul Wouters via Datatracker <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Paul Wouters has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13-03: Yes > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to > https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ > for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Implementations that support multiple versions of the TLS protocol MUST > prefer to negotiate the latest version of the TLS protocol. > > I'm a little confused why this needs to be stated as an update, as this is a > general requirement of TLS (or any versioned protocol really)
I hear this phrase all the time: There is no document that specifies how to do protocol X with Y. You can reply that the “normal” updates procedure addresses this issue, but 99 times out of 100 times you’re going to get a quizzical look. This statement closeout that discussion. > It might be useful to point to > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8446#section-4.2.1 that deals with > how > to negotiate allowing TLS 1.2 when also supporting and preferring TLS 1.3. I mean if everybody read and remembered all the detail … More seriously, without this document there are some I believe that wouldn’t ever have read RFC 8446 and happy move along. I can add a ref to 4.2.1; see the following PR: https://github.com/ietf-wg-pce/draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13/pull/20 Cheers, spt _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
