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

[Justin Uberti <[e-mail]>]

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
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>>
>>>