Subject: [Uta] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-uta-tls-for-email-04: (with DISCUSS)

From: Suresh Krishnan via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 20:53:26 -0800

Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-uta-tls-for-email-04: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-uta-tls-for-email/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I think the following text from Section 4.1 of RFC8314 needs to be updated as
well. Is there any reason this is left out?

   Transition of users from SSL or TLS 1.0 to later versions of TLS MAY
   be accomplished by a means similar to that described above.  There
   are multiple ways to accomplish this.  One way is for the server to
   refuse a ClientHello message from any client sending a
   ClientHello.version field corresponding to any version of SSL or
   TLS 1.0.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 18:35:56 -0500

>     ClientHello.version field corresponding to any version of SSL or

Since this paragraph is about transitioning away from deprecated 
versions of TLS, perhaps the paragraph should be amended to:

    Transition of users from SSL, TLS 1.0, or TLS 1.1, to later versions of
    TLS MAY be accomplished by a means similar to that described above.
    There are multiple ways to accomplish this.  One way is for the server
    to refuse a ClientHello message from any client sending a
    ClientHello.version field corresponding to any version of SSL or
    TLS versions < 1.1.

Keith