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

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

I need to find some time to read this, but at this point I think it will be
after Brisbane,.

On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 8:23 AM Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi, Eric.
>
> Checking in with you regarding the status of this document.  Please advise.
>
> Thank you!
>
> RFC Editor/lb
>
> > On Mar 4, 2024, at 3:39 PM, Sean Turner <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Many thanks Justin!
> >
> > spt
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> >> On Mar 4, 2024, at 02:28, Justin Uberti <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >> I read through the latest diff and this all looks good to me, please
> proceed with publication. Thanks all for your help to get this done!
> >>
> >> Justin
> >>
> >> On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 5:15 PM Sean Turner <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >> Thanks!
> >>
> >> spt
> >>
> >> > On Feb 29, 2024, at 20:14, Justin Uberti <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I'm going to do a read-thru this weekend just to review all the edits
> and hope to sign off once that is done.
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 6:55 PM Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >> > I still have to review the changes; I've been waiting for these
> discussions to conclude beforehand. I'll try to do that in the next week or
> two.
> >> >
> >> > -Ekr
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 9:11 AM Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >> > 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
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
>
>