Re: [TLS] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate-05

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 8:00 PM Rob Sayre <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 8:04 PM Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>  So, 6347 was totally reasonable at the time and I expect the guidance in
>> this document to override 6347 which all seems quite normal.
>>
>
> Right, that makes sense.
>
>
>>
>> draft-ietf-rtcweb-security arch doesn't precisely encourage you to
>> implement DTLS 1.0; there's no normative language at all (even in the
>> non-2119 sense).
>>
>
> It does have a normative reference to RFC 6347, and seems to be
> referencing this part of it: "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)"
>

Yes, but this section of 6347 will be overriden by the present document


I can understand the WG's "MUST (but we know you won't)" situation. Trying
> to write spec text for those situations always ends badly over time (imho),
> but maybe editing the draft itself would be controversial.
>
> It does look like draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate should update the
> draft, if it's changed so that it updates DTLS-using RFCs. For example, if
> the document had been published in 2017, would there even be a debate?
>

Yes. You don't need to mark the transitive closure of all dependent RFCs as
Updated.

-Ekr


> thanks,
> Rob
>
>