Re: [rtcweb] DTLS version

On 04 Jul 2014, at 12:23, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com> wrote:

> 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.
Hmm, the submission deadline is approaching and I try to figure out if there
is consensus which DTLS version to use:
We used DTLS 1.2 on the SCTP over DTLS ID, and both data channel IDs.
During the WG LC I got the comment that RTCWeb uses 1.0, so please change it. I haven't
got these comments on the data channel IDs during WG LC.

It looks like I'll change the documents to use 1.0 for now, submit them. Then we
have a consistent state. If the WG (or the IESG) decides that we want 1.2, the IDs have
to be resubmitted after the IETF.

Best regards
Michael
> 
> 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
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> 