Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9429 <draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-05> for your review

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

Hi Eric, Justin,

Are you also okay?

Ted

On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 6:10 PM Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi, Cullen.
>
> Glad that all looks good.  We have noted your approval:
>
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9429
>
> Thank you!
>
> RFC Editor/lb
>
> > On Feb 27, 2024, at 5:25 AM, Cullen Jennings <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Thanks looks good to me.
> >
> > I am OK to publish this.
> >
> > Thank you
> >
> >
> >> On Feb 26, 2024, at 3:50 PM, Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi, Justin, Ted, Eric, and Cullen.
> >>
> >> Cullen, we have updated this document per your note below.
> >>
> >> The latest files are posted here.  Please refresh your browser:
> >>
> >>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9429.txt
> >>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9429.pdf
> >>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9429.html
> >>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9429.xml
> >>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9429-diff.html
> >>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9429-rfcdiff.html
> >>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9429-auth48diff.html
> >>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9429-lastdiff.html
> >>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9429-lastrfcdiff.html
> >>
> >>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9429-xmldiff1.html
> >>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9429-xmldiff2.html
> >>
> >> Please let us know whether (1) additional updates are needed for this
> document or (2) you approve this document for publication in its current
> form.
> >>
> >> Thank you!
> >>
> >> RFC Editor/lb
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Feb 26, 2024, at 2:30 PM, Justin Uberti <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> This proposal also looks good to me.
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 6:42 AM Ted Hardie <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>> Hi Justin,
> >>>
> >>> Can you confirm you are also okay with this way forward?
> >>>
> >>> thanks,
> >>>
> >>> Ted
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 1:44 PM Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>> This works for me.
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 9:53 AM Cullen Jennings <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> First, my huge apologies for the ridiculous time I have taken to get
> back to this. I was out sick for a while and then dealing with reorgs at
> Cisco but even with all of that, I should have done this long ago.
> >>>
> >>> I agree with Ekr's reasoning on what we should do here to cite both
> RFC 6347 and 9147 along with the note he proposed for section 5.1.1. I
> think that should acceptable to anyone else too based on Ekr's argument.  I
> can see an argument that the note is not needed but I think it clarifies a
> somewhat confusing situation of what does referencing both 6347 and 9147
> even mean.  I would argue that since 9147 is permitted, not required, in
> RFC8827 this could be an information instead of normative reference to
> 9147. However, I think the note clarifies the issue and I am fine with
> ignoring if the ref is normative or not. So I’m fine with both 6347 and
> 9147 normative along with the note.
> >>>
> >>> Lynne, can you make the following changes ?
> >>>
> >>> In 5.1.1 add Ekr's note to the bullet point:
> >>>
> >>> OLD
> >>> * DTLS [RFC6347] [RFC9147] or DTLS-SRTP [RFC5763] MUST be used, as
> >>> appropriate for the media type, as specified in [RFC8827].
> >>> NEW
> >>> * DTLS [RFC6347] [RFC9147] or DTLS-SRTP [RFC5763] MUST be used, as
> >>> appropriate for the media type, as specified in [RFC8827].
> >>> Note: RFC 8827 requires implementations to support
> >>> DTLS 1.2 [RFC 6347] and permits the use of DTLS 1.3 [RFC 9147].
> >>> (I did not change anything in the old, just added note to end of it).
> >>>
> >>> I think that is only change that comes out of this.
> >>>
> >>>> On Jan 15, 2024, at 12:36 PM, Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 11:15 AM Cullen Jennings <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Sorry for the very long delay on this. It’s been an a sort of shitty
> month for me.
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Cullen,
> >>>>
> >>>> I think we should disentangle two issues.
> >>>>
> >>>> 1. What we substantively say about what version of DTLS people ought
> to use.
> >>>> 2. What we use as a citation where the bare term "DTLS" without a
> version number is used.
> >>>>
> >>>> As you may recall, JSEP doesn't specify DTLS versions and leaves that
> to S 6.5 or RFC 8827, which has this somewhat labored text encouraging but
> not requiring you to use DTLS 1.2.
> >>>>
> >>>> All implementations MUST support DTLS 1.2 with the
> TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 cipher suite and the P-256 curve
> [FIPS186]. Earlier drafts of this specification required DTLS 1.0 with the
> cipher suite TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA, and at the time of this
> writing some implementations do not support DTLS 1.2; endpoints which
> support only DTLS 1.2 might encounter interoperability issues. The
> DTLS-SRTP protection profile SRTP_AES128_CM_HMAC_SHA1_80 MUST be supported
> for SRTP. Implementations MUST favor cipher suites which support Forward
> Secrecy (FS) over non-FS cipher suites and SHOULD favor Authenticated
> Encryption with Associated Data (AEAD) over non-AEAD cipher suites. Note:
> the IETF is in the process of standardizing DTLS 1.3 [TLS-DTLS13].
> >>>>
> >>>> If we wanted to say anything normative about DTLS, we would properly
> do so in an 8827 bis, but we haven't done so, and I don't recall there
> being much WG discussion on DTLS versions since DTLS 1.3 was published. So
> my suggestion would be to try to just address point (2) here, which is to
> say to provide reasonable references while not creating new normative facts
> on the ground. I think the text above permits the use of DTLS 1.3,  so the
> current status is your (A), and while I would argue for A'[MUST DTLS 1.2,
> SHOULD DTLS 1.3] I don't think that's for this document.
> >>>>
> >>>> This leaves us with the question of what references to provide. What
> I suggest here is that we cite both RFC 6347 and 9147 wherever we just say
> "DTLS", except for S 5.1.1, which actually requires the use of DTLS, and
> there add a note something like:
> >>>>
> >>>> "Note: RFC 8827 requires implementations to support DTLS 1.2 [RFC
> 6347] and permits the use of DTLS 1.3 [RFC 9147]".
> >>>>
> >>>> How does this sound?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Below I do address your substantive points which might go into a
> discussion of an 8827-bis, but if you agree with me here, we don't need to
> reach those here.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Dec 11, 2023, at 7:13 AM, Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Let's make sure that we agree on the substantive situation first.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> * DTLS 1.3 deprecates DTLS 1.2, so a compliant implementation should
> be able to use either.
> >>>>
> >>>> I suspect we disagree on what deprecate means but probably not
> relevant to sort this out.
> >>>>
> >>>> I should have been clear: RFC 9147 obsoletes RFC 6347. As people
> probably know, I'm not a fan of any of these tags, so I'm open to arguments
> that this was wrong, but that's what it says.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I want to be careful on use or implement. For sure, I think it is
> great for an implementation to support both and negotiate the latest thing
> it can.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> * DTLS 1.3 is not yet widely deployed, so a compliant implementation
> should implement 1.2 and 1.3, at least for now.
> >>>>
> >>>> Well, I think I am arguing they need to 1.2 to be a webrtc complaint
> implantation and it would be very nice if they also do 1.3
> >>>>
> >>>> Even worse that adoption, DTLS 1.3 is blocked by a significant
> fraction of enterprise firewalls. I would like to keep webertc working in
> those situations for now. I agree there is a point in time where we decide
> that things that only do 1.2 just get left behind but I don’t think that
> anyone is arguing we do that in Auth 48 of this doc.
> >>>>
> >>>> Absolutely not.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> What I don’t want to be in situation of saying you must use 1.3 to be
> webrtc compliant because I think that will cause a lot of breakage.
> >>>>
> >>>> 100% agreed. I also think it is reasonable to argue that we shouldn't
> have MUST implement 1.3 (see below).
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Neither of these "shoulds" is intended in the 2119 sense, just in
> terms of what we expect.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Do you disagree with either of these statements?
> >>>>
> >>>> So just trying to reason my way through this. Look at it from point
> of view of what we are asking implements to implement if they are compliant
> with this RFC to be. Some various things we could be asking for are:
> >>>>
> >>>> A. Must implement 1.2 and may implement 1.3
> >>>>
> >>>> B. Must implement both 1.2 and 1.3
> >>>>
> >>>> C. Must implement 1.3 and Must NOT use 1.2
> >>>>
> >>>> D. I guess a 4th option is could have a MUST implement 1.3 and but is
> optional to implement 1.2 or not but that seems pretty much the same as C
> from an interoperability point of view.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I was working on the assumption that we were doing A for this draft
> because that is the situation for 8829 and we were not changing the TLS
> version part of things in this draft.
> >>>>
> >>>> I feel very strongly it is too early to do C and it would be bad for
> WebRTC to do C at this point of time. And this was caused me to think the
> refs were not right in the draft.
> >>>>
> >>>> On B - I’m just not sure. Part of me feels like mandating this is
> sort of like mandating webrtc must do both v4 and v6. I have no objections
> to a very convincing argument either way. I do feel a bit like, is this the
> right draft for this change.
> >>>>
> >>>> That make sense as way of clarifying a path forward ? I agree with
> you that as long as we are clear what we are trying to get done, we can
> figure out how to tweak the reference spices to get that taste.
> >>>>
> >>>> On the substantive matter, I totally agree that C and D are
> nonstarters. I think it's between A (or maybe A' [MUST TLS 1.2 and SHOULD
> TLS 1.3]) and B.
> >>>>
> >>>> -Ekr
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>