Subject: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-sslv3-diediedie-03.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 12:46:10 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Transport Layer Security Working Group of the IETF.

        Title           : Deprecating Secure Sockets Layer Version 3.0
        Authors         : Richard Barnes
                          Martin Thomson
                          Alfredo Pironti
                          Adam Langley
	Filename        : draft-ietf-tls-sslv3-diediedie-03.txt
	Pages           : 6
	Date            : 2015-04-10

Abstract:
   Secure Sockets Layer version 3.0 (SSLv3) [RFC6101] is not
   sufficiently secure.  This document requires that SSLv3 not be used.
   The replacement versions, in particular Transport Layer Security
   (TLS) 1.2 [RFC5246], are considerably more secure and capable
   protocols.

   This document updates the backward compatibility section of RFC 5246
   and its predecessors to prohibit fallback to SSLv3.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-sslv3-diediedie/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tls-sslv3-diediedie-03

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-tls-sslv3-diediedie-03

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 12:52:50 -0700

This is a maintenance update only, it covers some of the feedback
during last call(s), of which there was nothing major.  The diff is
pretty easy to read if you are concerned that I pulled a fast one.

I just realized that there is a regression here, but it's a very minor
one: the Abstract includes citations, which doesn't conform to the RFC
style guide.  I'm going to leave this to the RFC editor.