Re: [rtcweb] DTLS version

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

I made this change in the current draft at:

https://github.com/rtcweb-wg/security-arch/commit/c2af2bf7fd032abd367dff8d4d16f7ec435fa663

Note that the TLS WG is currently discussing whether to bring ECC onto
Standards Track.
If they do, we probably want ot require support of ECDHE. We should discuss
in YYZ.



On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 3:23 AM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) <
[e-mail]> 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.
>
> Keith
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: rtcweb [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> > Harald Alvestrand
> > Sent: 04 July 2014 09:07
> > To: [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [rtcweb] DTLS version
> >
> > On 07/03/2014 07:58 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> > > On 3 July 2014 01:39, DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
> > > <[e-mail]> 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
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rtcweb mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> >
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>