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

[Rob Sayre <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 9:48 PM Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 7:43 AM Rob Sayre <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 9:08 PM Cullen Jennings <[e-mail]> 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