Return-Path: 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 1BF6712080F; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 10:46:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.997 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 ZGzvZLFq9y13; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 10:46:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-io1-xd2d.google.com (mail-io1-xd2d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2d]) (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 7C27C120AE0; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 10:46:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-io1-xd2d.google.com with SMTP id i13so18563420ioj.5; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 10:46:47 -0800 (PST) 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=v9D1mMNvp3vYvGPAo6KQF0hX7WX0OH0tj7Np1+p1vpA=; b=TK2cKDJRE5in1HdxszMBcWHVXQMkG+J5xcUBzfZoPkY7vpV4pjGfUmf4JhdkOnZtjH 9MM8BbskblRrZWCgt2lutIgMYsTEKUC+/2jSU8U4uDUr7XB3V17LSXeJ++oLqEagU1bW vdcPOcUbdMXHWbk3AH0g+kp5h7qBP+OiLAxXaEs1Gq1a4xLDxOL+8aeO8vUiBMntp5QY yw9yvf00q2MuN73v5rPtgL3gL1sKoSx/aB/ADHqCMez0k9bg0EeS98jO2ghIy5ezCpzK GL3aB50T7c3av/0WTQ566iE+7rlY2fn5jR05nGK/DsMMkC5OR9krPvXmV5NWMUo/6ULh xoXw== 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=v9D1mMNvp3vYvGPAo6KQF0hX7WX0OH0tj7Np1+p1vpA=; b=sDyKd8tf+IW3s0PpqUTms63vQ4eUPQiaHgV6LKHSenvKHn/bHKDdiX+Bavd0D0h5sQ S970zxGSBM2oPIEPQh2d1R8gJyBL4++vwS65rTy3pxv9x78oqEAwL8hIH3KL7cHXRkUP I77DYIigscm0LgCc3oySU+nYuJDWH74ExkywHWPDbptasqlghGqGr33NxRGDTwVO+0Xb OC0ZfZJa8zW8yDENfZhRRBJ1zJGnFzyt0Sx7cpuxW96tkweYKoNbmsmH8bq+FtUgm9rD cAoEDDqgvB7niQpfnxzAk7A4kROAawgLpPtjhbvqW+6OFPzOHCLBM7Jgf2l+6CP0In6n T1GQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWGSQqbUYJE3z6BUbCEpM1kJWGJZ+EcF9kb9QD6DIf1aI5Cqqy0 FUBOLfWrG3woYpxQM2IH/ztzLkC4i2EzzUv/EWo= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx/cfGiNJISv53g14YOfOP4FsoabkUlr2AX3CHDcWgzkMNJ4yxV8QzIt96Dwbblkig1SDpQBoKLS/7Fxcy7KDI= X-Received: by 2002:a5d:8b83:: with SMTP id p3mr387893iol.189.1573584406651; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 10:46:46 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20191111195325.GE32847@kduck.mit.edu> <0df737cb-4947-4926-2c6d-dd3583356a2c@cs.tcd.ie> In-Reply-To: From: Rob Sayre Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2019 10:46:35 -0800 Message-ID: To: Eric Rescorla Cc: "Kaduk, Ben" , "tls@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate.all@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000952ba105972aabe9" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [TLS] preliminary AD review of 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." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2019 18:46:50 -0000 --000000000000952ba105972aabe9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 10:24 AM Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 9:56 AM Rob Sayre wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 7:58 AM Eric Rescorla wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 2:43 PM Rob Sayre wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 12:27 PM Kaduk, Ben wrote: >>>> >>>>> The one concrete one that I remember (and can't attribute to the >>>>> HTMLized version dropping stuff) is RFC 7030 only in the header. >>>>> >>>>> I guess we can check what we want to do to DTLS as well, as RFC 6347 >>>>> is listed as Updates:-ed but that's the DTLS 1.2 spec. (6347 itself >>>>> confusingly claims in the body text to "update DTLS 1.0 to work with TLS >>>>> 1.2" but has an "Obsoletes: 4347" header.) I don't see what specifically >>>>> we update in 6347. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I think the text in question is the last paragraph of RFC 6347's >>>> Introduction: >>>> >>>> "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), just as TLS 1.2 implementations can interoperate with >>>> previous versions of TLS (see Appendix E.1 of [TLS12] for details), >>>> with the exception that there is no DTLS version of SSLv2 or SSLv3, >>>> so backward compatibility issues for those protocols do not apply." >>>> >>>> This draft says "don't interoperate" in this situation. >>>> >>> >>> I don't typically get too exercised about what appears in these metadata >>> headers, but I don't actually think this updates 6347. The statement there >>> is still true, we just tell you not to do it. >>> >> >> Well... I think the clearest definition of "updates" is in RFC 2223: >> >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2223#section-12 >> >> "... e.g., an addendum, or separate, extra information that is to be >> added to the original document." >> > > Yes, and I don't think that this does that. > OK. I agree with what you wrote: "The statement there is still true, we just tell you not to do it." That seems like new information a reader of RFC 6347 should be made aware of. thanks, Rob --000000000000952ba105972aabe9 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 10:24 AM Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:


On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 9:56 AM Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com> wrote:
<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-l= eft:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">


On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 7:58 AM Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
=


On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 2:43 PM Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 12:27 PM Kaduk, Ben <bkaduk@akamai.com> wrote:
The one concrete one that I remember (and can't attribute to= the HTMLized version dropping stuff) is RFC 7030 only in the header.

I guess we can check what we want to do to DTLS as well, as RFC 6347 is lis= ted as Updates:-ed but that's the DTLS 1.2 spec.=C2=A0 (6347 itself con= fusingly claims in the body text to "update DTLS 1.0 to work with TLS = 1.2" but has an "Obsoletes: 4347" header.)=C2=A0 I don't= see what specifically we update in 6347.

=C2=A0I think the text in question is the last paragraph of RFC 6347'= ;s Introduction:

"Implementations that speak = both DTLS 1.2 and DTLS 1.0 can
=C2=A0 =C2=A0interoperate with those th= at speak only DTLS 1.0 (using DTLS 1.0 of
=C2=A0 =C2=A0course), just as = TLS 1.2 implementations can interoperate with
=C2=A0 =C2=A0previous vers= ions of TLS (see Appendix E.1 of [TLS12] for details),
=C2=A0 =C2=A0with= the exception that there is no DTLS version of SSLv2 or SSLv3,
=C2=A0 = =C2=A0so backward compatibility issues for those protocols do not apply.&qu= ot;

Th= is draft says "don't interoperate" in this situation.

I don't typically get too exercise= d about what appears in these metadata headers, but I don't actually th= ink this updates 6347. The statement there is still true, we just tell you = not to do it.

Well... I t= hink the clearest definition of "updates" is in RFC 2223:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2223#section-12

"... e.g., an addendum, or separate, extra inform= ation that is to be added to the original document."
=

Yes, and I don't think that this does = that.

OK. I agree with wh= at you wrote: "The statement there is still true, we just tell you not= to do it."

That seems like new information a= reader of RFC 6347 should be made aware of.

thank= s,
Rob

--000000000000952ba105972aabe9--