As a professional organization and part of due diligence, we need to try and understand the risks and ramifications on the deployments of our solutions. This means, understanding exactly how the market uses and needs to use the solutions we create. When we remove or change some technology, we should try hard to provide a work around. If a work around is not possible, we need to cleanly document how these changes are going to impact the market so it can prepare. This is the responsible and prudent thing to do in a professional organization like the IETF.
The draft that Nancy and others have worked on is a great start to documenting how these new solutions are going to impact organizational networks. Regardless of whether you like the use-cases or regulations that some organizations have, they are valid and our new solutions are going to impact them. Thanks, Bret PGP Fingerprint: 63B4 FC53 680A 6B7D 1447 F2C0 74F8 ACAE 7415 0050 "Without cryptography vihv vivc ce xhrnrw, however, the only thing that can not be unscrambled is an egg." > On Jul 23, 2019, at 7:44 PM, Dennis Jackson <dennis.jack...@cs.ox.ac.uk> > wrote: > > RFC 791 is nearly 40 years old. > RFC 4074 lists 5 forms of deviations from RFC 1034 and explains > the correct behavior. > RFC 7021 describes a series of objective tests of RFC 6333 and > the results. > > > The above RFCs describe objective test results and how they > relate to earlier RFCs. In contrast, this document offers a > speculative and subjective discussion of possible future impact. > > > I do not believe there is any precedent supporting publication. > > > Best, > Dennis
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
