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

"Olle E. Johansson" <oej@edvina.net> Mon, 30 November 2020 13:12 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 C689E3A0AB5 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 05:12:25 -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 rIRPxsfpglM3 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 05:12:23 -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 D74443A0A94 for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 05:12:22 -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 D1B35BDE; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 14:12:18 +0100 (CET)
From: "Olle E. Johansson" <oej@edvina.net>
Message-Id: <5CB58D08-19FB-4CCA-AF5A-B676AF3FC5A7@edvina.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_CBD4752F-B0D3-4CC0-835B-4C7063AE7B53"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2020 14:12:18 +0100
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBOkxh9BPN1aSHA8gVww--j7tunH+mqa5J85H9=c9ZKHaA@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>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/DvrZ1lErIRwOwddTxnTO_rMBG2Y>
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 13:12:26 -0000


> On 30 Nov 2020, at 14:08, Eric Rescorla <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?

Or do we have to say “RFC3261 compliant with the addition of RFC XXXX” where XXXX is this document?

Sorry to be picky, but I’m interested in understanding the effect of these updates to a long list of RFCs.

/O