On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 10:24 AM Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > 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. > 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
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
