Hiya,
On 09/03/2019 20:04, John Mattsson wrote:
> Yes, you can find the 3GPP TLS profile in Clause 6.2 of 3GPP TS 33.210
> https://www.3gpp.org/DynaReport/33210.htm
Thanks for that, will add a mention.
And in a nice bit of irony, the www.3gpp.org server uses TLS1.0 :-)
S.
y ;-)
/John
-Original Message-
From: Stephen Farrell
Date: Saturday, 9 March 2019 at 16:06
To: John Mattsson , "TLS@ietf.org"
Subject: Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate-01.txt
Hi John,
On 08/03/2019 22:44, John Mattsson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks fo
/tlswg/oldversions-deprecate/blob/master/draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate.txt
>
> Cheers, John
>
> -Original Message- From: TLS on
> behalf of Stephen Farrell Date: Thursday,
> 8 November 2018 at 06:36 To: "TLS@ietf.org" Subject:
> Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draf
Nit: The document uses "TLS1.0" "TLSv1.0" while most other drafts use "TLS
1.0"
Cheers,
John
-Original Message-
From: TLS on behalf of Stephen Farrell
Date: Thursday, 8 November 2018 at 06:36
To: "TLS@ietf.org"
Subject: Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-i
Hi Stephen,
And RFC 7525 (belonging to BCP 195) states in Section 3.1.1:
o Implementations SHOULD NOT negotiate TLS version 1.1
[...]
o Implementations MUST support TLS 1.2 [RFC5246] and MUST prefer to
negotiate TLS version 1.2 over earlier versions of TLS.
That's why I
Hiya,
On 08/03/2019 19:31, Julien ÉLIE wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>>> That's why I suggest draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate does not
>>> update RFC 4642. It is no longer useful.
>>> Are you OK with this analysis?
>>
>> Sorta:-) I think these are overlapping but not quite
>> identical updates.
Hi Stephen,
That's why I suggest draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate does not
update RFC 4642. It is no longer useful.
Are you OK with this analysis?
Sorta:-) I think these are overlapping but not quite
identical updates. E.g. IIUC 8143 doesn't say to not
use TLSv1.1. I added the sentence
Hi Julien,
Thanks for taking the time to check this!
On 07/03/2019 20:42, Julien ÉLIE wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>> This version attempts to make the few changes discussed
>> at the meeting on Monday. I wrote a script that gave me
>> a list of 76(!) RFCs this might need to update, and may
>> of
Hi Stephen,
This version attempts to make the few changes discussed
at the meeting on Monday. I wrote a script that gave me
a list of 76(!) RFCs this might need to update, and may
of course have mucked that up, so if anyone has a chance
to check if (some of) those make sense, that'd be great.
On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 2:20 AM Stephen Farrell
wrote:
> On 08/11/2018 17:21, Hubert Kario wrote:
> > what was the rationale for dropping the section about deprecating SHA-1 in
> > TLS
> > 1.2? I see nothing in minutes from IETF103.
>
> I asked during the presentation if the WG wanted to
> keep
Hiya,
On 08/11/2018 17:21, Hubert Kario wrote:
> what was the rationale for dropping the section about deprecating SHA-1 in
> TLS
> 1.2? I see nothing in minutes from IETF103.
I asked during the presentation if the WG wanted to
keep it or not, as it's clearly not quite the same
as the rest of
On Thursday, 8 November 2018 06:28:31 CET internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories. This draft is a work item of the Transport Layer Security WG
> of the IETF.
>
> Title : Deprecating TLSv1.0 and TLSv1.1
>
Hiya,
This version attempts to make the few changes discussed
at the meeting on Monday. I wrote a script that gave me
a list of 76(!) RFCs this might need to update, and may
of course have mucked that up, so if anyone has a chance
to check if (some of) those make sense, that'd be great.
Ta,
S.
13 matches
Mail list logo
