On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 9:56 AM Rob Sayre <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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." >
Yes, and I don't think that this does that. -Ekr > thanks, > Rob > >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
