Re: [TLS] preliminary AD review of draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate-05

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Tue, 12 November 2019 18:24 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.com>
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 26479120A43 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 10:24:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 DGnAVovETOi4 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 10:24:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22c.google.com (mail-lj1-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3FEDB120946 for <tls@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 10:24:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22c.google.com with SMTP id t5so18947975ljk.0 for <tls@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 10:24:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=D08vZjThllY0RvkhROl5KrWAY9XaJwDECW/4zxxQrMU=; b=aG1c9YgwKELpy/0c5iHv6T6yLLwBAWZk2Uq94ihd4aDt7mZ+Hq3D9UzvBVxxDu+tlD ZtDdAqz3X8Lquo5Lik50yiNkn2R4U8ACB/MiA6Etq+X3OI+kpMtVK6Me7hEoI2L2jkQG 3YYGDOa9rMoDVo2Q0vlBtaAThWmBXzSPdh8PHPlMIzWY25HYgz2T+x1fcKhBSEnR1537 EWrudErii58F/q/He+WwuneCScILj0QUSYXHz9OS5WTRLrjdeiIAKiQUJ30zqjDFjlCX wN7zfDuKX06y00tNp2n9eB5kzKqCPpbRWoZY3UZ/7HabHnIcDxLOGk/skSzBOgBg8cxb 1P5w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=D08vZjThllY0RvkhROl5KrWAY9XaJwDECW/4zxxQrMU=; b=rBIYlb7DjZDyqD0ssrh2bPfVUEDUdHjUMeQjv1C+/ly/59dHAmD5igeXQvQsoF+Fdn NURWuZ8l775uAqM8ChQkzPUn39EPgNfBYgfmXBmlH3iPI05HQsXAthZSBAcOaH8tFRH2 ibsGmmwgZMB+cdtig+NBVfL6Q4Sl7WplyzUeEIlfynX3/Hq90yh/iVqRJdgSQZHYZ5f4 MdJ8zy/ePY6kCcM1VVoU+ZBIqkuTkvIDVw+j8XaK8cJ307SWV4VGy9cp/6/UNyonct2l 9qb2wF+RjAjO8q/MGLCs1uTs/+XMpxTk4fMWuFKuvm9xnrHJb91KH3BjnHuqVR44BVjJ B7YQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWy/jwrQZxfUPl/wxo2xKE+nW1VMQlyV5U/tUKh98kOlOvNDHUl shKWoc8kmMLmUQ1yvGCVL78GKQYn8BWDa0wdgmlUmw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx/HxDfT58y1lKK/crabvbKHhLVJazWAszL4y3x3N66TTH2rVe1T3dbQyL5aM+ig/DVDUBVkKNHkEGQQLtjuvg=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:7301:: with SMTP id o1mr13437111ljc.16.1573583063503; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 10:24:23 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20191111195325.GE32847@kduck.mit.edu> <0df737cb-4947-4926-2c6d-dd3583356a2c@cs.tcd.ie> <D701674A-28EF-4B0B-8F57-6C6B4D83D37A@akamai.com> <CAChr6Swr8PWN=HHrGfnZ+5_8rd2YyfC7SE2+9tBk2D8DNSQMeg@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBOgJnoG42RSDiwTF0qMnnryo6HOyYtca32WuuPHkBNX_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAChr6SzJQwuo7DFjA2P_rrGni2JfRm0s1cXNvSAtgqU8sigc2w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAChr6SzJQwuo7DFjA2P_rrGni2JfRm0s1cXNvSAtgqU8sigc2w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2019 10:23:46 -0800
Message-ID: <CABcZeBNTa=GGmNDrAp_49MmZceaFxEc-MNn=g4_t0iM=1H+x-g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
Cc: "Kaduk, Ben" <bkaduk@akamai.com>, "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate.all@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000086698605972a5b0c"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/9GIp-DyHmtgSN3LjTSg5E5POUyE>
Subject: Re: [TLS] preliminary AD review of draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate-05
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: Tue, 12 Nov 2019 18:24:31 -0000

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 9:56 AM Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>; wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 7:58 AM Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>; wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 2:43 PM Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>; wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 12:27 PM Kaduk, Ben <bkaduk@akamai.com>; wrote:
>>>
>>>> The one concrete one that I remember (and can't attribute to the
>>>> HTMLized version dropping stuff) is RFC 7030 only in the header.
>>>>
>>>> I guess we can check what we want to do to DTLS as well, as RFC 6347 is
>>>> listed as Updates:-ed but that's the DTLS 1.2 spec.  (6347 itself
>>>> confusingly claims in the body text to "update DTLS 1.0 to work with TLS
>>>> 1.2" but has an "Obsoletes: 4347" header.)  I don't see what specifically
>>>> we update in 6347.
>>>>
>>>
>>>  I think the text in question is the last paragraph of RFC 6347's
>>> Introduction:
>>>
>>> "Implementations that speak both DTLS 1.2 and DTLS 1.0 can
>>>    interoperate with those that speak only DTLS 1.0 (using DTLS 1.0 of
>>>    course), just as TLS 1.2 implementations can interoperate with
>>>    previous versions of TLS (see Appendix E.1 of [TLS12] for details),
>>>    with the exception that there is no DTLS version of SSLv2 or SSLv3,
>>>    so backward compatibility issues for those protocols do not apply."
>>>
>>> This draft says "don't interoperate" in this situation.
>>>
>>
>> I don't typically get too exercised about what appears in these metadata
>> headers, but I don't actually think this updates 6347. The statement there
>> is still true, we just tell you not to do it.
>>
>
> Well... I think the clearest definition of "updates" is in RFC 2223:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2223#section-12
>
> "... e.g., an addendum, or separate, extra information that is to be added
> to the original document."
>

Yes, and I don't think that this does that.

-Ekr


> thanks,
> Rob
>
>