[Last-Call] Re: Concern about draft-ietf-uta-require-tls13-10 with IoT protocols

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

To: Toerless Eckert <tte@xxxxxxxxx>, "draft-ietf-uta-require-tls13.all@xxxxxxxx" <draft-ietf-uta-require-tls13.all@xxxxxxxx>, "last-call@xxxxxxxx" <last-call@xxxxxxxx>, "uta@xxxxxxxx" <uta@xxxxxxxx>, "iesg@xxxxxxxx" <iesg@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Last-Call] Re: Concern about draft-ietf-uta-require-tls13-10 with IoT protocols
From: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz=40akamai.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2025 16:48:12 +0000
Cc: "iotops@xxxxxxxx" <iotops@xxxxxxxx>, "anima@xxxxxxxx" <anima@xxxxxxxx>, "draft-ietf-anima-brski-prm@xxxxxxxx" <draft-ietf-anima-brski-prm@xxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <Z_VJQs67l95i0PlW@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <Z_VJQs67l95i0PlW@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>

Is the second paragraph of Sec 4 not sufficient? It says “If deployment considerations are a concern, the protocol MAY specify TLS 1.2 as an additional, non-default option.”

-- 
last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx

Follow-Ups:
- [Last-Call] Re: Concern about draft-ietf-uta-require-tls13-10 with IoT protocols
  - From: Toerless Eckert

References:
- [Last-Call] Concern about draft-ietf-uta-require-tls13-10 with IoT protocols
  - From: Toerless Eckert

Prev by Date: [Last-Call] Re: [Anima] Concern about draft-ietf-uta-require-tls13-10 with IoT protocols
Next by Date: [Last-Call] Re: Concern about draft-ietf-uta-require-tls13-10 with IoT protocols
Previous by thread: [Last-Call] Re: [Iotops] Re: [Anima] Re: [Uta] Re: Concern about draft-ietf-uta-require-tls13-10 with IoT protocols
Next by thread: [Last-Call] Re: Concern about draft-ietf-uta-require-tls13-10 with IoT protocols
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [IETF Annoucements] [IETF] [IP Storage] [Yosemite News] [Linux SCTP] [Linux Newbies] [Mhonarc] [Fedora Users]

Powered by Linux