On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 7:20 PM Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote: > >> 1) it doesn't seem like a particularly valid claim to say that the >> document "doesn't pull" in DTLS 1.0 when the rationale for that claim is a >> missing reference. >> > > Well I suppose you're entitled to your opinion, but no, I don't think > that's true. We have a very specific meaning for normative dependency and > in no way would this be one. At most this would be an informative reference. > > In any case, this is not the proper place for this discussion. If you want > this document changed, you'll need to take it to the RTCWEB WG. >
Honestly, thank you for the sincere response. After I read more of the many relevant documents, it became clear that draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate says implementations MUST NOT negotiate DTLS 1.0, while RFC 6347 and draft-ietf-rtcweb-security-arch encourage negotiation that results in endpoints agreeing on DTLS 1.0. That seems like the inconsistency to discuss. thanks, Rob
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
