On Mon, 23 Jun 2025, [email protected] wrote:
Subject: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-deprecate-obsolete-kex-06.txt
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-tls-deprecate-obsolete-kex-06.txt is now available.
It is a work item of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) WG of the IETF.
A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-tls-deprecate-obsolete-kex-06
Two comments on the changes:
[RFC9325] contains the latest IETF recommendations for users of the
(D)TLS protocol (and specifically, (D)TLS 1.2) and this document
supersedes it in several points. Appendix F details the exact
differences. All other recommendations of the BCP document remain
valid.
This added sentence will age poorly. Maybe it can point to the IANA
registry (or [BCP195] instead of [RFC9325]) ? Also I find "the BCP document"
not clear. If you mean [RFC9325] or [BCP195], please just state that clearly?
This also raises the question that Valery raised before. Should this
document not be a BCP and be added to BCP195 ? I guess Sean punted this
question to the IESG, so I'll create the IESG ballot and point this
issue out to them. So we can leave this as is for now.
For each regsitry entry in Appendix A, Appendix B, Appendix C,
Appendix D, and Appendix E, IANA is also requested to update the
registry entry's Reference column to refer to the this document.
But you added Appendix F, which needs to be added to this list to refer
to this document, especially since if we leave it as-is and [BCP195] would
not get updated.
NITS: "regsitry" -> "registry"
Paul
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
