On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 7:58 AM Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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. >
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." thanks, Rob
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
