IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] DTLS version

"DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com> Fri, 04 July 2014 10:23 UTC

Return-Path: <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9233A1B2CE3 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Jul 2014 03:23:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Asuue_5GCdXR for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Jul 2014 03:23:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hoemail1.alcatel.com (hoemail1.alcatel.com [192.160.6.148]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F1F71B2816 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Jul 2014 03:23:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-239-2-122.lucent.com [135.239.2.122]) by hoemail1.alcatel.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id s64ANeuW027112 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 4 Jul 2014 05:23:42 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from FR711WXCHHUB02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr711wxchhub02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.112]) by fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id s64ANdi3005055 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 4 Jul 2014 12:23:40 +0200
Received: from FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.7.71]) by FR711WXCHHUB02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.112]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Fri, 4 Jul 2014 12:23:39 +0200
From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] DTLS version
Thread-Index: AQHPluhoQia+CLBEBkOxqOTgqEBL35uPbqEAgABGAyA=
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2014 10:23:39 +0000
Message-ID: <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B1FD11D@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <A963F527-57EB-4617-9583-6C0D63DDE4BD@lurchi.franken.de> <CAOW+2dvgg3zMU0C_EjozRnEEs9BmSy2k0u2PKExb3AeCF6in=Q@mail.gmail.com> <C52F606C-C7E3-4AF8-B249-07C16A474F52@lurchi.franken.de> <CABkgnnXszLWwXgfg=TOHuxrnnQMy3QBaFKS2SC+eOHiC90cFoQ@mail.gmail.com> <DBE402B8-82FF-41A8-A971-9BB71D9A4830@lurchi.franken.de> <6355614E-44DA-4729-97C2-E903548EBA8B@gmail.com> <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B1FC18D@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <CABkgnnWBeeSDoeHDkbjGEwvpcJ+Ld6q1Fs_Fwckp3oW_Hzmcew@mail.gmail.com> <53B660BC.4090907@alvestrand.no>
In-Reply-To: <53B660BC.4090907@alvestrand.no>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.39]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/3OS4CEFVvub4EbWCpJzNTgKk8Tc
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] DTLS version
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2014 10:23:52 -0000

This is the direction I am tending in as well.

Although what or if the second statement needs from RFC 2119 language would need to be debated.

Obviously, new versions are not being put out there just to make it look like the WG is performing. In any referencing (not just this issue), I would need a good technical reason why the latest version cannot be made the normative reference. I am not seeing that at the moment.

There is always be non-conforming equipment on the market (as an example look at the number of SIP implementations that still use UDP for large messages, or that can at least be configured that way). Just because we mandate 1.2 does not mean that everyone will conform from day 1, but at least a marker is established for what should be addressed if interoperability issues are identified.

Keith 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of 
> Harald Alvestrand
> Sent: 04 July 2014 09:07
> To: rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] DTLS version
> 
> On 07/03/2014 07:58 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> > On 3 July 2014 01:39, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) 
> > <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com> wrote:
> >> Can someone elaborate what this massive apparent step 
> change is from 1.0 to 1.2?
> > Actually, it's not a massive step.  TLS 1.2 (DTLS 1.2 
> depends on this, 
> > DTLS 1.0 depends on TLS 1.1) adds AEAD modes, but doesn't require 
> > their use, so you can pretty much just bump the version number and 
> > advertise 1.2.  That's exactly what we did with NSS, though NSS 
> > already supports TLS 1.2.
> >
> > That said, I agree with Jim about 1.0.  There's enough 1.0 
> out there 
> > now to make mandating 1.2 - as much as I might prefer that 
> - a little 
> > too aggressive.
> >
> >> Will those implementations that choose to stay with 1.0 
> still interwork with 1.2?
> > That depends.  We could say "MUST NOT negotiate 1.0", which would 
> > prevent that.  I don't think that we're there.
> 
> Sounds to me like MUST implement 1.2 (in order to move 
> forward), MUST accept 1.0 (in order to not lose the long tail).
> 
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rtcweb mailing list
> > rtcweb@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email