IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] Missing updates in our RFCS? - what does update mean (modified topic)

"Olle E. Johansson" <oej@edvina.net> Mon, 30 November 2020 14:14 UTC

Return-Path: <oej@edvina.net>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCF423A0EA4 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 06:14:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 bEjLqWMViUkX for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 06:14:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp7.webway.se (smtp7.webway.se [212.3.14.205]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C97073A0DEC for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 06:13:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pinguicula.webway.org (h-205-16.A165.corp.bahnhof.se [176.10.205.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp7.webway.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D03E5BDE; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 15:13:49 +0100 (CET)
From: "Olle E. Johansson" <oej@edvina.net>
Message-Id: <02766B07-9798-4198-B3C8-84718A91D75B@edvina.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_1212558C-24DE-4785-8F02-E39BE8563E6B"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2020 15:13:49 +0100
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBNNyhzGTrGYKG7zGKHHKbJeLkNmhQVgm2uGyOyEDMTp=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Olle E Johansson <oej@edvina.net>, Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com>, TLS List <tls@ietf.org>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
References: <CACsn0cmzJ_1u5481P4Odr=L6A6mUw5NiB4zR_mwrkdJF1dSZSA@mail.gmail.com> <C190C488-57EB-47CA-A1E3-36CD183BF1E0@edvina.net> <CABcZeBOkxh9BPN1aSHA8gVww--j7tunH+mqa5J85H9=c9ZKHaA@mail.gmail.com> <5CB58D08-19FB-4CCA-AF5A-B676AF3FC5A7@edvina.net> <CABcZeBNNyhzGTrGYKG7zGKHHKbJeLkNmhQVgm2uGyOyEDMTp=Q@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/3fenrL-tdaeOhv1gxoc5WFgEqSU>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Missing updates in our RFCS? - what does update mean (modified topic)
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tls/>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2020 14:14:14 -0000


> On 30 Nov 2020, at 15:07, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 5:12 AM Olle E. Johansson <oej@edvina.net <mailto:oej@edvina.net>> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 30 Nov 2020, at 14:08, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com <mailto:ekr@rtfm.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sun, Nov 29, 2020 at 10:36 PM Olle E. Johansson <oej@edvina.net <mailto:oej@edvina.net>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> > On 30 Nov 2020, at 01:51, Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com <mailto:watsonbladd@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > 
>> > Dear TLS WG,
>> > 
>> > I think RFC 7627 should update 5056, 5705, and maybe a few more.
>> > 
>> > I noticed these omissions when looking at the kitten draft to use TLS
>> > 1.3 exporters. Having these updates would hopefully make clear what
>> > uses need to be updated, or at least show where there might be a
>> > problem.
>> 
>> On that topic I have to repeat an earlier question that I did not see any response to.
>> 
>> SIP is declared in RFC 3261. This draft updates 3261. Does this mean
>> that the SIP standard is modified? To be SIP compliant, do one has to
>> follow this document too (after publication)?
>> 
>> I’ve gotten a few pointers earlier that ended up with “It’s unclear what an
>> RFC update means”.
>> 
>> I would really like it to mean that in order to be SIP compliant, you can not
>> use deprecated versions of TLS.
>> 
>> Me too. Unfortunately, my understanding of the way things work is that there's
>> no formal thing meaning "SIP Compliant". Rather, one complies with a bunch of
>> RFCs and so people wouldn't be "RFC XXXX compliant", which isn't really what
>> is wanted here.
> 
> Ok - but does this change the meaning of being “RFC 3261” compliant?
> 
> Not to my knowledge.
> 
> Or do we have to say “RFC3261 compliant with the addition of RFC XXXX” where XXXX is this document?
> 
> Yes.

Which in the end means that the only way to get vendors to move ahead and update their platforms
is to write a document that really makes RFC 3261 obsolete. 

/O

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email