On 27/09/2019 04:50, Martin Thomson wrote: > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019, at 10:52, Stephen Farrell wrote: >>>> """The expectation is that TLSv1.2 will continue to be used >>>> for many years alongside TLSv1.3.""" >> >> So is your proposed change to only remove that sentence? > > I just checked, and it seems like the only thing the document says > along these lines, so yeah.
Grand so. Like I said I don't think it's a biggie so I've commented out that sentence in the GH version. [1] [1] https://github.com/tlswg/oldversions-deprecate/blob/master/draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate.txt BTW - for the chairs/AD - how are we doing on getting IETF LC under way? I realise the world won't end if this isn't super-fast but it's been 3 months since publication was requested which seems like a bit of a while. Cheers, S. > >> Personally, I'm not that fussed. Including or omitting that seems >> not a big deal to me. If the WG are however keen on such a change >> that's fine too. OTOH, we've already done a bunch of process-steps >> with this process-draft so I do wonder if that change really >> amounts to a worthwhile thing. > > I do. Or I wouldn't have written the email. Do you think that this > is a valuable statement? I think that it says that the IETF lacks > confidence in the suitability of TLS 1.3 as a replacement for TLS > 1.2. > > If you want a smaller change, s/many years/some time/ >
0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
