Hi, I have sympathy for the chairs. I do find this one a little frustrating, although I agree.
I wrote pretty much the same thing, either directly or by quoting Ekr in a few messages: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/_e_osuwApqE3jJcXiAxFMsXWdog/ https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/R-iG879zBBQgQXlOt9pZ7Tdtc9c/ It's not because I'm a genius, but because the conclusion seems obvious. I think this kind of intransigence is also one of the things that gives the list a bad reputation. What a drag. If TLS-LTS works out, we can always take it up again, as I already wrote (sorry). thanks, Rob On Mon, Dec 2, 2024 at 1:05 PM Sean Turner <s...@sn3rd.com> wrote: > This chairs discussed this and we agree that there does not appear that we > have consensus to adopt the TLS 1.2 Update for Long-term Support I-D. > > The chairs would like to note that the WGLC for TLS 1.2 is in Feature > Freeze (draft-ietf-tls-tls12-frozen) is about to happen shortly. We do not > believe that progressing TLS 1.2 is in Feature Freeze should affect efforts > by Peter, if he so chooses, to publish TLS 1.2 Update for Long-term Support > I-D either by AD sponsor or through the ISE; we will note that the code > point is already assigned (and has been for years). > > spt > > > On Nov 5, 2024, at 11:25, Sean Turner <s...@sn3rd.com> wrote: > > > > REQUEST: Let’s not rehash all the context. It is provided for those who > might not remember or those that were not around for the duration. > > > > CONTEXT: Way back in 2016 after the WG had embarked on developing TLS > 1.3, Peter Gutmann suggested that another way to “fix” TLS was to specify a > version of TLS that indicates a “known-good config drawn from the maybe 10 > extension-RFCs”; see [0]. Peter submitted his “TLS 1.2 Update for > Long-term Support”; see [1]. There was some list discussion; see [2]. Peter > asked us about adopting the I-D; see [3]. He made changes based on that > feedback; see [4]. At IETF 98, the WG discussed adopting this I-D and the > sense of the room was to not adopt the I-D; see [5]. Progress on this > document was paused while the WG worked on TLS 1.3. Once RFC 8447 was > published, a code point was assigned for the “tls-lts” extensions; see [6] > and [7]. Now that we are looking to publish Feature Freeze for TLS 1.2 > [8][9] we want to make sure that the working group sentiment has not > changed over time so we are running an adoption call for TLS-LTS. > > > > MESSAGE: This message is to judge consensus on whether there is support > to adopt TLS 1.2 Update for Long-term Support; see [1]. If you support > adoption and are willing to review and contribute text, please send a > message to the list. If you do not support adoption of this draft, please > send a message to the list and indicate why. This call will close on > November X, 2024. > > > > Thanks, > > spt > > > > [0] > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/Lr7VwcPCjzDJelUTRTIUJf_8-ww/ > > [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gutmann-tls-lts/ > > [2] > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/r4w75rooy-r8Ky-xXAUoslYTL_U/ > > [3] > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/6tBftKBmxYz_wUcq79_zH8yDTQk/ > > [4] > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/aw9BOS4HJ9uum0snEZqSuKA4BYw/ > > [5] https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/98/materials/minutes-98-tls-00 > > [6] > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls-reg-review/bP84S3tHSG9gAmc45CLTjpiA0z8/ > > [7] > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/xmhnVQTckDmUkoxhx4wx1bfpYXM/ > > Thanks to Peter because he helped us iron out the > > wrinkles in the tls-reg-review process. > > [8] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-tls12-frozen/ > > [9] > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/f62yvLL_4mDEsRzAY46L4QLjakU/ > > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
