ks. So we need to be a bit more
patient (***)
(***) Nothing, just checking if you are still following me in this meander
of recursive footnotes ;-)
> John
>
>
>
> *From: *TLS on behalf of Hannes Tschofenig <
> hannes.tschofe...@arm.com>
> *Date: *Monday, 25 October 2021 at 1
2021-11-04 11:12 GMT-04:00 David Benjamin :
> Indeed it's *because* there is still an existing 1.2 deployment that we
> should be judicious with backports. Today, nearly every TLS implementation
> needs to implement both 1.2 and 1.3. The ClientHello is cross-version, so it
> is not possible for
TLS libraries should spend their time on TLS
> 1.3 rather than giving the false idea it is ok to stay on TLS 1.2.
> >>
> >> John
> >>
> >> From: TLS on behalf of Hannes Tschofenig <
> hannes.tschofe...@arm.com>
> >> Date: Monday, 25 October
should spend their time on TLS 1.3
rather than giving the false idea it is ok to stay on TLS 1.2.
John
From: TLS on behalf of Hannes Tschofenig
Date: Monday, 25 October 2021 at 19:12
To: IETF TLS
Subject: [TLS] Flags Extension: why only for TLS 1.3?
Hi all,
why is the flags exte
e speed at which the market operates.
From: John Mattsson
mailto:john.matts...@ericsson.com>>
Sent: Thursday, November 4, 2021 2:11 PM
To: Hannes Tschofenig
mailto:hannes.tschofe...@arm.com>>; IETF TLS
mailto:tls@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: Flags Extension: why only for TLS 1.3?
TLS 1.
Tschofenig , John Mattsson
, IETF TLS
Subject: Re: [TLS] Flags Extension: why only for TLS 1.3?
I am amused to see a telecom person saying obsolete when it’s only 2-3 years
old. In my discussions I’ve found that they think in terms of at least 10
years
LS 1.2. While I am a big fan of TLS / DTLS 1.3, I would
> also like to acknowledge the speed at which the market operates.
>
>
>
> *From:* John Mattsson
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 4, 2021 2:11 PM
> *To:* Hannes Tschofenig ; IETF TLS <
> tls@ietf.org>
> *Subject
I am amused to see a telecom person saying obsolete when it’s only 2-3 years
old. In my discussions I’ve found that they think in terms of at least 10
years. ☺
___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
nig ; IETF TLS
Subject: Re: Flags Extension: why only for TLS 1.3?
TLS 1.2 has been obsolete for over three years. Oxford dictionary defines
obsolete as "no longer produced or used; out of date." NIST requires support of
TLS 1.3 everywhere no later than Jan 2024, which at l
something entirely
different for DTLS 1.2?
-Original Message-
From: Sean Turner
Sent: Thursday, November 4, 2021 2:27 PM
To: Hannes Tschofenig
Cc: TLS List
Subject: Re: [TLS] Flags Extension: why only for TLS 1.3?
Hannes,
Sorry I forgot to answer this, but John pretty much answered
their time on TLS 1.3
> rather than giving the false idea it is ok to stay on TLS 1.2.
>
> John
>
> From: TLS on behalf of Hannes Tschofenig
>
> Date: Monday, 25 October 2021 at 19:12
> To: IETF TLS
> Subject: [TLS] Flags Extension: why only for TLS 1.3?
>
&
libraries should spend their time on TLS 1.3
rather than giving the false idea it is ok to stay on TLS 1.2.
John
From: TLS on behalf of Hannes Tschofenig
Date: Monday, 25 October 2021 at 19:12
To: IETF TLS
Subject: [TLS] Flags Extension: why only for TLS 1.3?
Hi all,
why is the flags exte
Hi all,
why is the flags extension only defined for TLS 1.3?
There is nothing in this extension that prevents us from using it also in TLS
1.2.
Could we make it also available to TLS 1.2?
Ciao
Hannes
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are
confidential and may
13 matches
Mail list logo
