On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 2:04 AM tom petch <[email protected]> wrote:
> What is the point of rfc7525bis? Why do we need it? > > It seems to me that RFC7525 is a good set of recommendations and little > has changed, in practical terms, since it was produced, although > cryptanalysts can find weaknesses therein > > --- > New Outlook Express and Windows Live Mail replacement - get it here: > https://www.oeclassic.com/ > > .. > > The one change I am aware of is that the TLS WG has produced TLS 1.3 - I > follow the TLS WG mailing list - but so what? TLS 1.3 failed to meet one > key requirement What is that key requirement? and I am unclear whether or not TLS 1.3 will gain widespread use in the > Internet, with HTTP, SMTP and such like. I don't know about SMTP, but TLS 1.3 has *already* achieved widespread use on the Internet. 28% of sites support it [https://www.ssllabs.com/ssl-pulse/] Upward of 40% of TLS connections on Firefox Beta are TLS 1.3 [ https://telemetry.mozilla.org/new-pipeline/dist.html#!cumulative=0&end_date=2020-04-22&include_spill=0&keys=__none__!__none__!__none__&max_channel_version=beta%252F76&measure=SSL_HANDSHAKE_VERSION&min_channel_version=beta%252F73&processType=*&product=Firefox&sanitize=1&sort_by_value=0&sort_keys=submissions&start_date=2020-04-07&table=0&trim=1&use_submission_date=1 ] So, I am against adoption until it is clear that the I-D will endorse TLS > 1.2 as adequate for most purposes. After all, the TLS WG has yet to > propose an I-D 'TLS 1.2 - Die, Die, Die' > Nor do we expect to in the near future. There is a difference between (1) you should use version X and (2) you should not support version Y < X. The question is what is best practice? -Ekr > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Valery Smyslov <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Cc: 'Yaron Sheffer' <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, > 'Ralph Holz' <[email protected]>, 'Peter Saint-Andre' < > [email protected]> > Sent: 26/04/2020 10:35:30 > Subject: [Uta] Adoption call for draft-sheffer-uta-rfc7525bis-00 > > ________________________________________________________________________________ > > Hi, > > during the last virtual interim meeting the draft > draft-sheffer-uta-bcp195bis-00 was presented and the authors asked for its > adoption. > The general feeling in the room was in favor of the adoption, however > the authors were asked to rename it to *-rfc7525-bis. > The authors have renamed the draft and asked the chairs for its adoption. > Since our responsible AD thinks agrees that this work is within the charter > of the WG, the chairs are issuing a formal call for adoption > to confirm the results we had at the meeting. > > This message starts a two weeks call for adoption of the > draft-sheffer-uta-rfc7525bis-00 draft. > The call will end up 10 May 2020. Please send your opinions to the list > before this date. > > Please if possible include any reasons supporting your opinion. If you > support this adoption, > please indicate whether you are ready to review this draft if it becomes a > WG document. > > Regards, > Leif & Valery. > > > _______________________________________________ > Uta mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta > > _______________________________________________ > Uta mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta >
_______________________________________________ Uta mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
