I'd also add that it usually takes a few years to publish any RFC, so this group will increasingly push up against TLS 1.2's deprecation date. There are already a bunch of caveats one needs to take into account to deploy it securely, and it seems unlikely we've seen the last attack against it. It's much more complex than TLS 1.3 in many ways (obv everyone on this email knows this, just making the point).
SSL 2.0 1995 Deprecated in 2011 (RFC 6176) SSL 3.0 1996 Deprecated in 2015 (RFC 7568) TLS 1.0 1999 Deprecated in 2020 (RFC 8996) TLS 1.1 2006 Deprecated in 2020 (RFC 8996) TLS 1.2 2008 Deprecated in ???? TLS 1.3 2018 At the limit, this group could specify extensions to TLS 1.2 that would exist as published RFCs for a very short period of time before TLS 1.2 is deprecated. I don't feel strongly about the extension that sparked this discussion, but TLS 1.2 efforts of any kind become more questionable with the passage of time. thanks, Rob On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 1:20 PM Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
