On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 2:43 PM Rob Sayre <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 12:27 PM Kaduk, Ben <[email protected]> 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. -Ekr > thanks, > Rob > > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
