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

Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com> Fri, 04 October 2019 14:58 UTC

Return-Path: <sayrer@gmail.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 74101120883; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 07:58:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 Qos4x8IIwqqT; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 07:58:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd2a.google.com (mail-io1-xd2a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2a]) (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 73D71120897; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 07:58:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd2a.google.com with SMTP id n197so14118360iod.9; Fri, 04 Oct 2019 07:58:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=jo//O/KqimRqrLCEcqYQgVeJnteLoukj5ip+PhwTU5g=; b=pBC0GKxxLicPqTjK3fCcmXnuJK2JJ3QN66JnolSNXfJyTvj+uNsy5lUr4fWy4kBQUL kemb5Uj0GTQTxmS+fAH30jP5s7DS6K+NYdR6lGuMu8XaQelxM/y5dGShzm0ESGIerw0N ATHxMa7EaU2Kd090yGUKxF8jCYOrOIiEksdS3mLOhbjHuDhNl3ZPxDT8pr9sOkXHjnci yKvN0V4V7bYlJ+id55Tc+h/OlbkKW0Ype5QJJuOWAoKVzXoRPzCMiFbTihzwPdZNpuCS GN5k6cFbAD+m2xusLrB4neDc21oS492hW/RxkIvdNnLG0KLcK/+C9Vt94GvObkBlglRv fGZQ==
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=jo//O/KqimRqrLCEcqYQgVeJnteLoukj5ip+PhwTU5g=; b=pF83x41ekYlZvmQmbLzzV509wi32x5tJClWsCVdgCke8Ayg+pPttOkwu/gNIZhhGWI gHDj6n8TrBMDH+AYAGxzVnYR1fG32r082PAnvkvDpU11MHgO6bp1FVYuXqCzJG4T8m/2 ihdv+MJDmogHZ9eR3VSuBp6l5juxrbd1AOITB554hA6bkE5nhbZBSPeldlUW/lqjvGvy GoqFfWAUUodC1Qqpd6IEAkPk2h0Xntc3GkUi75XI43BxEvby2uk0KYR73rD7WAcClQxS Pe5c92cbwxSwxPiDKdvpClLI1jkLbpluDRKYQ0HK/RtdQM+HY+ixW9HxTGU73F5Y8OZv 8uVg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVZHE/UBY8dVcyKaN8ZbGwN9B71MZuYEU4+dZb9oCeMU+WecoJr PGFL9dM+vcmRaQTXEZEV2Nt4vF2zYxEcilC4vmU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwQhIsZ5wGKfqRBEO+iMF72KpGbdn8BL5/gUF9HmYy4D/xJuRcZ4cpE3a72A8U9dCo5Hs0DmSfLoP5jtsX9bLI=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:ca8e:: with SMTP id t14mr16180341ilo.73.1570201085575; Fri, 04 Oct 2019 07:58:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <156172485494.20653.307396745611384846.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <989F828F-B427-47A6-A114-4EAEA67D43D7@ericsson.com> <CABcZeBOCzwLDEUyiqkDG0Qqaf652_+j1KBsJQJcJk2Lew_9wCw@mail.gmail.com> <00C5D54E-40C7-4E95-AD2D-9BC60D972685@sn3rd.com> <5bcf3b7c-5501-70f0-4ce7-384f885c39e7@cs.tcd.ie> <6F040DD1-C2E2-4FD2-BB37-E1B6330230BD@ericsson.com> <149BDA3C-14CF-459F-90D4-5F53DBEF9808@iii.ca> <CAChr6Sx4AVjkoKWiD2-cT2ZBNg=mKzeOX603gVs0f7vQ_FgN7A@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBNOVOBifOSnWdxSDTLizUUUn6ctLrBT43CHK+4B7KWGiQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBNOVOBifOSnWdxSDTLizUUUn6ctLrBT43CHK+4B7KWGiQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2019 21:57:53 +0700
Message-ID: <CAChr6SzT3GqmidPbmVjmrZX=u1UpBee4e8K2C-zHuNHEqgB7uQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Cc: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>, "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>, Sean Turner via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>, IESG Secretary <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>, "tls-chairs@ietf.org" <tls-chairs@ietf.org>, John Mattsson <john.mattsson=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ee8ad0059416ed1f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/i76rAzrs2M64gsbGp0i4rMbq2Ew>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Publication has been requested for 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: Fri, 04 Oct 2019 14:58:10 -0000

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 9:48 PM Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 7:43 AM Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 9:08 PM Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I do not think you have consensus for that change to WebRTC - it was
>>> discussed extensively. ...
>>>
>>
>>  While that may be true, readers of this list might want to read a
>> rationale, rather than just the results of a negotiation. Is there a
>> rationale somewhere?
>>
>> 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?


> 2. There is a rationale. In fact, the relevant text pretty much is all
> rationale.
>
>    All Implementations MUST support DTLS 1.2 with the
>    TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 cipher suite and the P-256
>    curve [FIPS186 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-security-arch-20#ref-FIPS186>].  Earlier drafts of this specification required DTLS
>    1.0 with the cipher suite TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA, and
>    at the time of this writing some implementations do not support DTLS
>    1.2; endpoints which support only DTLS 1.2 might encounter
>    interoperability issues.
>
>
Yes, I read this section and I was wondering what the rationale was for the
text: "endpoints which support only DTLS 1.2 might encounter
interoperability issues." Is there some data behind this? I'm not
suggesting a change in the draft without more information, but I do wonder
how the WG came to agree on this text.

thanks,
Rob