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

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 5:20 AM Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 10:29 AM Rob Sayre <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 1:25 AM Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>>> It seems strange to put DTLS 1.0 (based on TLS 1.1) into new
>>>>>> documents.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A few points.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. It doesn't pull it in. There's no reference and there's just an
>>>>> informative statement.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Shouldn't there be an informative reference?
>>>>
>>>
>>> To what?
>>>
>>
>> Hi, I missed this response. This discussion seems a bit tedious, but
>>
>> 1) it doesn't seem like a particularly valid claim to say that the
>> document "doesn't pull" in DTLS 1.0 when the rationale for that claim is a
>> missing reference.
>>
>
> Well I suppose you're entitled to your opinion, but no, I don't think
> that's true. We have a very specific meaning for normative dependency and
> in no way would this be one. At most this would be an informative reference.
>
> In any case, this is not the proper place for this discussion. If you want
> this document changed, you'll need to take it to the RTCWEB WG.
>
>
>> This thread also has some other unusual claims:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 7:34 PM Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>> > we can't "UPDATE" an I-D.
>>
>> Not true. If you need to refer to something that's been IESG-approved but
>> still in the RFC queue, you can leave a note for the RFC editor to update
>> the reference to the eventual RFC number.
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 8:17 PM Sean Turner <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> > You can change the text, but I do not believe it will change the
>> implementations.
>>
>> If true, changing the text would seem to be uncontroversial.
>>
>> Anyway, leaving strange text like this DTLS 1.0 stuff in the webrtc
>> document is one thing (although I'm surprised the IESG allowed it).
>> Claiming that a document like draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate can't
>> update documents from a concluded WG is another.
>>
>> If the IETF can't get consensus on actually deprecating DTLS 1.0, maybe
>> something similar to the text from draft-ietf-rtcweb-security-arch should
>> be added to draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate.
>>
>> "Earlier specifications required DTLS 1.0. Endpoints which support only
>> DTLS 1.2 might encounter interoperability issues."
>>
>> That would seem to subvert the point of the draft--I think this is the
>> point that the original post in this thread was making.
>>
>
> When we agreed to discuss
>

adopt.


this draft, there was an explicit discussion of the fact that this was the
> IETF's opinion based on security and protocol maturity but that we expected
> the transition to take longer in some domains than others, so I wouldn't
> have a problem with that kind of text, as I think it's factually accurate
> and implicit.
>
> -Ekr
>
>
>> thanks,
>> Rob
>>
>