Re: [openssl-dev] ETA: TLS 1.3 release

2017-04-21 Thread Matt Caswell
On 20/04/17 21:24, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Wed, 2017-04-19 at 12:14 +, Salz, Rich via openssl-dev wrote: >>> Out of curiosity, what's the ETA for TLS 1.3? >>> [1] mentions April 5 as the release date (which was two weeks ago). >>> >>> [1]:

Re: [openssl-dev] ETA: TLS 1.3 release

2017-04-20 Thread David Woodhouse
On Wed, 2017-04-19 at 12:14 +, Salz, Rich via openssl-dev wrote: > > Out of curiosity, what's the ETA for TLS 1.3? > > [1] mentions April 5 as the release date (which was two weeks ago). > >  > > [1]: https://blogs.akamai.com/2017/01/tls-13-ftw.html > > That's an akamai blog, not an openssl

Re: [openssl-dev] ETA: TLS 1.3 release

2017-04-19 Thread William A Rowe Jr
There is motion towards a 2.4.26 release around month end, give or take two weeks. On Apr 19, 2017 4:57 PM, "Kurt Roeckx" wrote: > On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 02:57:13PM +0200, Stefan Eissing wrote: > > > > > Am 19.04.2017 um 14:14 schrieb Salz, Rich via openssl-dev < >

Re: [openssl-dev] ETA: TLS 1.3 release

2017-04-19 Thread Kurt Roeckx
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 02:57:13PM +0200, Stefan Eissing wrote: > > > Am 19.04.2017 um 14:14 schrieb Salz, Rich via openssl-dev > > : > > > >> Out of curiosity, what's the ETA for TLS 1.3? > >> [1] mentions April 5 as the release date (which was two weeks ago). > >> >

Re: [openssl-dev] ETA: TLS 1.3 release

2017-04-19 Thread Stefan Eissing
> Am 19.04.2017 um 14:14 schrieb Salz, Rich via openssl-dev > : > >> Out of curiosity, what's the ETA for TLS 1.3? >> [1] mentions April 5 as the release date (which was two weeks ago). >> >> [1]: https://blogs.akamai.com/2017/01/tls-13-ftw.html > > That's an akamai

Re: [openssl-dev] ETA: TLS 1.3 release

2017-04-19 Thread Salz, Rich via openssl-dev
> Out of curiosity, what's the ETA for TLS 1.3? > [1] mentions April 5 as the release date (which was two weeks ago). > > [1]: https://blogs.akamai.com/2017/01/tls-13-ftw.html That's an akamai blog, not an openssl statement :) And that post is misleading, it should have said "available" not