Subject: [tsvwg] FW: Re Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: "Black, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 22:55:08 +0000

Here are the details on Stephen's original Discuss and what lead to clearing it ... Thanks, --David

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2015 5:20 PM
To: Black, David
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Re Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Ah thanks - if its that recent we're done. I'll clear in a bit. 

S

On Mon Jan 19 22:08:36 2015 GMT, Black, David wrote:
> Stephen,
> 
> You write:
> 
> -------------
> 	I'll clear once we've checked on this. Section 5 says
> 	DTLS1.0 (from 2006) is MTI and DTLS1.2 (2012) is a
> 	SHOULD. I could imagine that being reasonable when
> 	DTLS1.2 was newish, say when this work was getting
> 	started 2 years ago, but now a couple of years have
> 	passed, it might well be just fine to require DTLS1.2 -
> 	a lot has happened since and TLS1.2 deployment is now
> 	far ahead of where it was in 2012, and most specs have
> 	tended to include text like this because some
> 	implementers only had the older TLS version. So the
> 	DISCUSS is - is the 9 year old RFC still needed as MTI
> 	- can we not just say to use 1.2 now?  (Note: since
> 	this is sort-of a WebRTC spec, I think it's worth
> 	quickly re-visiting this question now to be sure we're
> 	taking the right approach, as the answer we pick here
> 	is quite likely to be followed by other WebRTC docs
> 	over the next year or so. I think this is the first
> 	relevant WebRTC protocol spec with this bit of text
> 	isn't it?  Apologies to the authors of this one for
> 	landing the discuss on them:-)
> -------------
> 
> And I likewise apologize for bouncing this one back onto you ...
> because your inference on what happened here is correct :-).
> 
> The DTLS version was *the* blocking issue holding up this draft, and
> the text that you are looking at is the result of an RTCWEB WG decision
> in Honolulu - Sean Turner gets the credit (and our thanks) for making
> that decision happen (and thereby unblocking this draft).
> 
> Please work this Discuss out with the RTCWEB WG chairs and/or RAI
> ADs ... and do let us know what the final answer is ;-).
> 
> Thanks,
> --David (TSVWG WG co-chair, who was in Honolulu)
> ----------------------------------------------------
> David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
> EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
> +1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
> [email-masked]        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
> ----------------------------------------------------
> 
>