Hi Peter,
with or without "freeze", I guess it will be not too easy to get enough
interest for required discussions and reviews to change or fix TLS 1.2.
On the other side, if there is enough interest for a special future 1.2
topic, I also don't get it, why that should be blocked with an "feature
freeze". For me it looks quite common, that only those who are
interested are participating in discussions. Those who are not
interested don't need to spend time. At least, I don't see, that someone
has to spend in the future more time in TLS 1.2 than in this discussion
about to "freeze" it.
(Yes, I read that "once" and then "never again". We will see, if that
works.)
best regards
Achim
Am 12.12.23 um 10:09 schrieb Peter Gutmann:
Rob Sayre <say...@gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 5:30 PM Peter Gutmann <pgut...@cs.auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
Absolutely clear. I work with stuff with 20-30 year deployment and life
cycles. I'm fairly certain TLS 1.2 will still be around when the WebTLS
world is debating the merits of TLS 1.64 vs. TLS 1.65.
I have to say, I am skeptical of this claim.
Which one, that there is equipment out there with 20-30 year life cycles or
that the WebTLS folks will be arguing over TLS 1.64 in the future? If the
latter then it may just be TLS 1.59 at that point, as I said I can't see the
future. If the former then I don't really know how to respond to that, are
you saying you don't believe that there are systems out there deployed and
used with multi-decade life cycles?
Peter.
_______________________________________________
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
