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

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 9:56 AM Rob Sayre <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 7:58 AM Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 2:43 PM Rob Sayre <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 12:27 PM Kaduk, Ben <[e-mail]> 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
>
>