> On Jan 3, 2024, at 17:13, Paul Wouters via Datatracker
> wrote:
>
> Paul Wouters has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13-03: Yes
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to
> https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13/
>
>
>
> --
> COMMENT:
> --
>
> Implementations that support multiple versions of the TLS protocol MUST
> prefer to negotiate the latest version of the TLS protocol.
>
> I'm a little confused why this needs to be stated as an update, as this is a
> general requirement of TLS (or any versioned protocol really)
I hear this phrase all the time: There is no document that specifies how to do
protocol X with Y. You can reply that the “normal” updates procedure addresses
this issue, but 99 times out of 100 times you’re going to get a quizzical look.
This statement closeout that discussion.
> It might be useful to point to
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8446#section-4.2.1 that deals with
> how
> to negotiate allowing TLS 1.2 when also supporting and preferring TLS 1.3.
I mean if everybody read and remembered all the detail … More seriously,
without this document there are some I believe that wouldn’t ever have read RFC
8446 and happy move along. I can add a ref to 4.2.1; see the following PR:
https://github.com/ietf-wg-pce/draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13/pull/20
Cheers,
spt
___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
