Re: [tsvwg] Call for feedback after IETF-113: Should draft-ietf-tsvwg-dtls-over-sctp-bis obsolete RFC 6083?

[[e-mail]]

> On 23. Apr 2022, at 09:25, Gorry Fairhurst <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> The TSVWG meeting session at IETF-113 discussed whether we should make a change to the currently adopted work item on DTLS for SCTP so that it will not update RFC 6083. We now need to confirm what would be acceptable by this WG. 
> 
> The meeting noted that this will result in two alternative DTLS Specs for SCTP. The IETF will need to do security maintenance of any security-related IETF protocol, which implies that if RFC 6093 remains active, it will, itself, need to be updated at some point in the future. 
Hi Gorry,

see my comments in-line.

Best regards
Michael
> 
> This email is to seek an acceptable plan to take this forward, suggestions are:
> 
> (a) Continue with the current plan that DOES replace RFC 6083 with draft-ietf-tsvwg-dtls-over-sctp-bis. Open source has been important in the past, and some thought that the associated IPR would likely not result in an open source replacement.
I agree that Open Source has been important in the past and for that reason
OpenSSL contains an implementation of RFC 6083 supporting FreeBSD and Linux.
But I guess this has changed, so adopt to the new way of working and move on.
If draft-ietf-tsvwg-dtls-over-sctp-bis replaces RFC 6083 I'm willing to provide
a patch to OpenSSL, which takes support for RFC 6083 out of their source tree.
I don't think OpenSSL would be willing to accept patches which provides support
for draft-ietf-tsvwg-dtls-over-sctp-bis given the IPR situation. 
> 
> (b) Modify the work item to publish draft-ietf-tsvwg-dtls-over-sctp-bis as a PS that does NOT obsolete RFC 6083. This would postpone any decision about whether to obsolete RFC 6083 and allows a different update for RFC6083. This also requires that draft-ietf-tsvwg-dtls-over-sctp-bis includes consideration of how the two altenative specs can co-exist.
If it makes sense or not to spend the resources depends on whether it is possible
to work around the IPRs or not. This can't be decided before the IPRs have been
published. But I guess the authors of draft-ietf-tsvwg-dtls-over-sctp-bis are not
willing to wait for that to happen before the document progresses.
> 
> (c) A different proposal - presently the chairs are not aware of other proposals from those who implement and use SCTP.
> 
> Please send thoughts or isssues in an email to the TSVWG list to help the chairs decide on this topic by 6th May 2022.
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Gorry
> 
> TSVWG Co-Chair.
>