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

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

Thanks. I have provided new XML with this fix. I trust your judgement on
the other locations.



On Sun, Mar 31, 2024 at 10:27 PM Justin Uberti <[e-mail]> wrote:

> The terminology change to "application" was intentional as many of the
> parameters that are exchanged are ultimately under the control of the
> application (eg via setCodecPreferences or BUNDLE policy) and we wanted to
> make that clear.
>
> Regarding the S8 use of "application's IP address" that you mentioned,
> that was an AUTH48 change to replace the text "your IP address". I agree
> that your suggestion of "endpoint's IP address" is more accurate here.
>
> Justin
>
> On Sun, Mar 31, 2024 at 3:52 PM Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have attached new XML with some minor revisions:
>>
>> 1. Changed my affiliation as I am no longer with Mozilla
>> 2. Changed
>>    2<sup>63</sup>-1.
>>  to
>>    (2<sup>63</sup>)-1.
>>
>> The current version renders fine in HTML but is confusing in
>> plain text.
>>
>> S 8.
>> Changed the reference to an "application's" IP address to
>> an "endpoint's" IP address. Applications don't really have
>> addresses independent from the systems they are on.
>>
>>
>> I also had a question about terminology.
>>
>> There are a number of cases where the term "application" is used to
>> refer to the browser, both in new text (5.2.1) and as a change from
>> "implementation" (5.9). This appears to me to be a regression, as some
>> endpoints may not really be applications and in the case of the Web
>> there is some confusion about whether the term "application" refers to
>> the the browser and the Web app. In this case, it's the browser and so
>> "implementation" seems superior. Justin, Cullen, did you make these
>> changes? If not, I would like to consistently use "implementation"
>> in these cases and can provide new XML.
>>
>>
>> -Ekr
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 11:29 AM Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, Eric.
>>>
>>> Checking in with you regarding the status of this document.
>>>
>>> Thank you!
>>>
>>> RFC Editor/lb
>>>
>>> > On Mar 15, 2024, at 11:57 AM, Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hi again, Eric.  Thank you for the update.
>>> >
>>> > RFC Editor/lb
>>
>>
>>> >
>>> >> On Mar 15, 2024, at 9:59 AM, Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> 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
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>>
>>>