LGTM. Regards, Rob
> -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Farrell <[email protected]> > Sent: 19 January 2021 14:28 > To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email protected]>; The IESG <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > 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 <[email protected]> On > >> Behalf Of Stephen Farrell Sent: 12 January 2021 21:35 To: Rob > >> Wilton (rwilton) <[email protected]>; The IESG <[email protected]> Cc: > >> [email protected]; > >> [email protected]; [email protected] 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&url2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/tlswg/oldversions- > deprecate/master/draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate.txt > > > > > Regards, Rob > > > > > >> > >> > >> Cheers, S. > >> > >> > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list > >>> [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls > >>> _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
