On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 1:23 AM Peter Gutmann <pgut...@cs.auckland.ac.nz> wrote: > > Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-d...@dukhovni.org> writes: > > >Peter, is there anything beyond TLS-TLS that you're looking to see work on? > >Is the issue foreclosing on opportunities to do anticipated necessary work, > >or is it mostly that the statement that the work can't happen causing > >disruption with audits and other bureaucratic issues? > > I can't foresee anything, but I also can't predict what the future will bring. > It's more a case of some currently unknown thing cropping up and an RFC saying > you can't make any changes preventing anything being done, at least in a > published-standard manner.
Why would deploying that change to TLS 1.2 be easier than deploying TLS 1.3? > > If it really is necessary to publish an RFC like this then perhaps text along > the lines of "you can't add major new features but performing maintenance is > OK" would work, although overall I still can't see why such an RFC is > necessary in the first place. The point is (IMHO) twofold: first it's to explain to other WGs and SDOs that they should use TLS 1.3 and not demand new features in TLS 1.2 instead of coming to us each time to tell them, and secondly it's to avoid rehashing this every time such a proposal comes up. > > Peter. > > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > TLS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls -- Astra mortemque praestare gradatim _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
