Re: [TLS] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate-11: (with COMMENT)
Thank you for your careful review, the change looks good to me. Best regards, Kathleen On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 10:07 AM Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote: > LGTM. > > Regards, > Rob > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Stephen Farrell > > Sent: 19 January 2021 14:28 > > To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) ; The IESG > > Cc: draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprec...@ietf.org; tls-cha...@ietf.org; > > tls@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [TLS] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-tls- > > oldversions-deprecate-11: (with COMMENT) > > > > > > Hiya, > > > > On 19/01/2021 11:05, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote: > > > > > > > > >> -Original Message- From: iesg On > > >> Behalf Of Stephen Farrell Sent: 12 January 2021 21:35 To: Rob > > >> Wilton (rwilton) ; The IESG Cc: > > >> draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprec...@ietf.org; > > >> tls-cha...@ietf.org; tls@ietf.org Subject: Re: [TLS] Robert > > >> Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-tls- oldversions-deprecate-11: > > >> (with COMMENT) > > >> > > >> > > >> Hiya, > > >> > > >> On 12/01/2021 18:14, Robert Wilton via Datatracker wrote: > > >>> Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for > > >>> draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate-11: No Objection > > >>> > > >>> 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/iesg/statement/discuss- > > >> criteria.html > > >>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found > > >>> here: > > >>> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate/ > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > -- > > >>> COMMENT: > > >>> > -- > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > Thank you for purging the old versions of TLS. > > >> > > >> Thanks for trudging through it! :-) > > >> > > >>> > > >>> There is one sentence in the abstract that I found surprising (if > > >>> it is > > >> right). > > >>> > > >>> The abstract states: "TLSv1.2 has been the recommended version > > >>> for IETF protocols since 2008, providing sufficient time to > > >>> transition away from older versions." > > >>> > > >>> Should this be "minimum recommended version"? Otherwise, I > > >>> don't > > >> understand > > >>> why the recommended version of TLS is 1.2 rather than 1.3 (given > > >>> that > > >> the TLS > > >>> 1.2 RFC is marked as obsolete). > > >> > > >> I see what you mean. > > >> > > >> I guess s/has been/became/ would do it? The point isn't so much > > >> what the current recommended version is/was but more that it's been > > >> a dozen years since it was TLSv1.1. > > > [RW] > > > > > > Yes, s/has been/became/ helps, but I still think that it implies that > > > TLV 1.2 is the current recommended version of TLS. > > > > > > Perhaps something along the lines of: > > > > > > TLSv1.2 became the recommended version for IETF protocols in 2008 > > > (now obsoleted by TLSv1.3 in 2018), providing sufficient time to > > > transition away from older versions." > > > > Sure. I did more or less that in the repo - [1] with > > diff vs. -11 at [2] > > > > Cheers, > > S. > > > > [1] > > > https://github.com/tlswg/oldversions-deprecate/blob/master/draft-ietf-tls- > > oldversions-deprecate.txt > > [2] > > > https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate- > > 11.txt=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/tlswg/oldversions- > > deprecate/master/draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate.txt > > > > > > > > Regards, Rob > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> Cheers, S. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> ___ TLS mailing list > > >>> TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls > > >>> > -- Best regards, Kathleen ___ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
Re: [TLS] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate-11: (with COMMENT)
LGTM. Regards, Rob > -Original Message- > From: Stephen Farrell > Sent: 19 January 2021 14:28 > To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) ; The IESG > Cc: draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprec...@ietf.org; tls-cha...@ietf.org; > tls@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [TLS] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-tls- > oldversions-deprecate-11: (with COMMENT) > > > Hiya, > > On 19/01/2021 11:05, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote: > > > > > >> -Original Message- From: iesg On > >> Behalf Of Stephen Farrell Sent: 12 January 2021 21:35 To: Rob > >> Wilton (rwilton) ; The IESG Cc: > >> draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprec...@ietf.org; > >> tls-cha...@ietf.org; tls@ietf.org Subject: Re: [TLS] Robert > >> Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-tls- oldversions-deprecate-11: > >> (with COMMENT) > >> > >> > >> Hiya, > >> > >> On 12/01/2021 18:14, Robert Wilton via Datatracker wrote: > >>> Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for > >>> draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate-11: No Objection > >>> > >>> 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/iesg/statement/discuss- > >> criteria.html > >>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > >>> > >>> > >>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found > >>> here: > >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate/ > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- > >>> COMMENT: > >>> -- > >>> > >>> > >>> > Thank you for purging the old versions of TLS. > >> > >> Thanks for trudging through it! :-) > >> > >>> > >>> There is one sentence in the abstract that I found surprising (if > >>> it is > >> right). > >>> > >>> The abstract states: "TLSv1.2 has been the recommended version > >>> for IETF protocols since 2008, providing sufficient time to > >>> transition away from older versions." > >>> > >>> Should this be "minimum recommended version"? Otherwise, I > >>> don't > >> understand > >>> why the recommended version of TLS is 1.2 rather than 1.3 (given > >>> that > >> the TLS > >>> 1.2 RFC is marked as obsolete). > >> > >> I see what you mean. > >> > >> I guess s/has been/became/ would do it? The point isn't so much > >> what the current recommended version is/was but more that it's been > >> a dozen years since it was TLSv1.1. > > [RW] > > > > Yes, s/has been/became/ helps, but I still think that it implies that > > TLV 1.2 is the current recommended version of TLS. > > > > Perhaps something along the lines of: > > > > TLSv1.2 became the recommended version for IETF protocols in 2008 > > (now obsoleted by TLSv1.3 in 2018), providing sufficient time to > > transition away from older versions." > > Sure. I did more or less that in the repo - [1] with > diff vs. -11 at [2] > > Cheers, > S. > > [1] > https://github.com/tlswg/oldversions-deprecate/blob/master/draft-ietf-tls- > oldversions-deprecate.txt > [2] > https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate- > 11.txt=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/tlswg/oldversions- > deprecate/master/draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate.txt > > > > > Regards, Rob > > > > > >> > >> > >> Cheers, S. > >> > >> > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ___ TLS mailing list > >>> TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls > >>> ___ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
Re: [TLS] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate-11: (with COMMENT)
Hiya, On 19/01/2021 11:05, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote: -Original Message- From: iesg On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell Sent: 12 January 2021 21:35 To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) ; The IESG Cc: draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprec...@ietf.org; tls-cha...@ietf.org; tls@ietf.org Subject: Re: [TLS] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-tls- oldversions-deprecate-11: (with COMMENT) Hiya, On 12/01/2021 18:14, Robert Wilton via Datatracker wrote: Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate-11: No Objection 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/iesg/statement/discuss- criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate/ -- COMMENT: -- Thank you for purging the old versions of TLS. Thanks for trudging through it! :-) There is one sentence in the abstract that I found surprising (if it is right). The abstract states: "TLSv1.2 has been the recommended version for IETF protocols since 2008, providing sufficient time to transition away from older versions." Should this be "minimum recommended version"? Otherwise, I don't understand why the recommended version of TLS is 1.2 rather than 1.3 (given that the TLS 1.2 RFC is marked as obsolete). I see what you mean. I guess s/has been/became/ would do it? The point isn't so much what the current recommended version is/was but more that it's been a dozen years since it was TLSv1.1. [RW] Yes, s/has been/became/ helps, but I still think that it implies that TLV 1.2 is the current recommended version of TLS. Perhaps something along the lines of: TLSv1.2 became the recommended version for IETF protocols in 2008 (now obsoleted by TLSv1.3 in 2018), providing sufficient time to transition away from older versions." Sure. I did more or less that in the repo - [1] with diff vs. -11 at [2] Cheers, S. [1] https://github.com/tlswg/oldversions-deprecate/blob/master/draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate.txt [2] https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate-11.txt=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/tlswg/oldversions-deprecate/master/draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate.txt Regards, Rob Cheers, S. ___ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls OpenPGP_0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc Description: application/pgp-keys OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
Re: [TLS] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate-11: (with COMMENT)
> -Original Message- > From: iesg On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell > Sent: 12 January 2021 21:35 > To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) ; The IESG > Cc: draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprec...@ietf.org; tls-cha...@ietf.org; > tls@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [TLS] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-tls- > oldversions-deprecate-11: (with COMMENT) > > > Hiya, > > On 12/01/2021 18:14, Robert Wilton via Datatracker wrote: > > Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for > > draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate-11: No Objection > > > > 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/iesg/statement/discuss- > criteria.html > > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate/ > > > > > > > > -- > > COMMENT: > > -- > > > > Thank you for purging the old versions of TLS. > > Thanks for trudging through it! :-) > > > > > There is one sentence in the abstract that I found surprising (if it is > right). > > > > The abstract states: "TLSv1.2 has been the > > recommended version for IETF protocols since 2008, providing > > sufficient time to transition away from older versions." > > > > Should this be "minimum recommended version"? Otherwise, I don't > understand > > why the recommended version of TLS is 1.2 rather than 1.3 (given that > the TLS > > 1.2 RFC is marked as obsolete). > > I see what you mean. > > I guess s/has been/became/ would do it? The point isn't so > much what the current recommended version is/was but more > that it's been a dozen years since it was TLSv1.1. [RW] Yes, s/has been/became/ helps, but I still think that it implies that TLV 1.2 is the current recommended version of TLS. Perhaps something along the lines of: TLSv1.2 became the recommended version for IETF protocols in 2008 (now obsoleted by TLSv1.3 in 2018), providing sufficient time to transition away from older versions." Regards, Rob > > > Cheers, > S. > > > > > > > > > > > ___ > > TLS mailing list > > TLS@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls > > ___ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
Re: [TLS] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate-11: (with COMMENT)
Hiya, On 12/01/2021 18:14, Robert Wilton via Datatracker wrote: Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate-11: No Objection 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate/ -- COMMENT: -- Thank you for purging the old versions of TLS. Thanks for trudging through it! :-) There is one sentence in the abstract that I found surprising (if it is right). The abstract states: "TLSv1.2 has been the recommended version for IETF protocols since 2008, providing sufficient time to transition away from older versions." Should this be "minimum recommended version"? Otherwise, I don't understand why the recommended version of TLS is 1.2 rather than 1.3 (given that the TLS 1.2 RFC is marked as obsolete). I see what you mean. I guess s/has been/became/ would do it? The point isn't so much what the current recommended version is/was but more that it's been a dozen years since it was TLSv1.1. Cheers, S. ___ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls OpenPGP_0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc Description: application/pgp-keys OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
[TLS] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate-11: (with COMMENT)
Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate-11: No Objection 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate/ -- COMMENT: -- Thank you for purging the old versions of TLS. There is one sentence in the abstract that I found surprising (if it is right). The abstract states: "TLSv1.2 has been the recommended version for IETF protocols since 2008, providing sufficient time to transition away from older versions." Should this be "minimum recommended version"? Otherwise, I don't understand why the recommended version of TLS is 1.2 rather than 1.3 (given that the TLS 1.2 RFC is marked as obsolete). ___ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
