Re: [TLS] Confirming consensus: TLS1.3->TLS*

[Sean Leonard]

+1 to TLS 1.3. My strong preference is TLS 1.3.

Reasons have been advanced ad-nauseam.

Just a couple of additional thoughts:
1.3 is in the protocol. So there.
"Perl 6". Just because you advance a version number to a big one, 
doesn't mean that businesses will see the justification to upgrade.


Sean

On 11/17/2016 6:12 PM, Sean Turner wrote:

At IETF 97, the chairs lead a discussion to resolve whether the WG should 
rebrand TLS1.3 to something else.  Slides can be found @ 
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/97/slides/slides-97-tls-rebranding-aka-pr612-01.pdf.

The consensus in the room was to leave it as is, i.e., TLS1.3, and to not 
rebrand it to TLS 2.0, TLS 2, or TLS 4.  We need to confirm this decision on 
the list so please let the list know your top choice between:

- Leave it TLS 1.3
- Rebrand TLS 2.0
- Rebrand TLS 2
- Rebrand TLS 4

by 2 December 2016.

Thanks,
J
___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls




___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls

Re: [TLS] X509 extension to specify use for only one origin?

[Sean Leonard]

I think it is interesting. A good place to take it up is the pkix 
mailing list anyway. See what people say.


As far as experimenting, it is not difficult to create a new X.509/PKIX 
extension. Just create an OID for your experimental use in whatever arc 
you have at your disposal, and go.


Sean

On 3/9/2016 8:41 AM, Salz, Rich wrote:


On the other hand, while it’s not a TLS issue per-se, this is the 
place most likely to have folks who care and are interested.


--

Senior Architect, Akamai Technologies

IM: richs...@jabber.at Twitter: RichSalz




___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls