Thanks, Chris. At a high level, I think we should be focusing our efforts on TLS 1.3. That means that we should design new features for 1.3 and not for 1.2, but if it's straightforward to also specify them for 1.2, this is potentially worthy of consideration on a case-by-case basis.
We generally should not be doing TLS 1.2-only work (including cases where we have to do a significantly different version or something for TLS 1.2 and TLS 1.3) except in cases where there is some significant defect of some kind. I think this is consistent with "maintenance". -Ekr On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 11:59 AM Christopher Wood <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 23, 2021, at 8:03 PM, Peter Gutmann wrote: > > Rob Sayre <[email protected]> writes: > > > >>The WG is not obligated to support TLS 1.2. > > > > Is that an official WG position, that the TLS WG has abandoned TLS 1.2? > If it > > is, can I have change control over it, because if the WG doesn't want to > > support it, someone will have to. > > To clarify, the TLS WG group is chartered to maintain current and previous > versions of (D)TLS, including TLS 1.2. Proposed changes that affect > previous versions are therefore in scope. >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
