On Sun, Aug 6, 2023 at 2:14 PM Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote:
> Sure. Though with that said, DTLS-SRTP should use the same code points for > 1.2 and 1.3, so I don't actually know if this is an exception after all. > I think the issue is still there in a spec lawyer kind of way. So, after this draft is published, would we say a new DTLS-SRTP cipher suite is defined for use in DTLS 1.2? That seems like the goal of the Github issue. thanks, Rob > -Ekr > > > On Sun, Aug 6, 2023 at 1:59 PM Rob Sayre <say...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Sun, Aug 6, 2023 at 11:48 AM Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Aug 6, 2023 at 9:58 AM Rob Sayre <say...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> There's also the fact that the TLS 1.3 was published in August 2018, >>>> but DTLS 1.3 wasn't published until April 2022. So, it is kind of >>>> reasonable to allow some extra time here. >>>> >>>> The WG could say this document doesn't apply to DTLS. Another choice >>>> would be to say that it does apply to DTLS, but the WG will continue to >>>> accept work for DTLS 1.2 that is DTLS-specific. The aim here being that >>>> DTLS is not used as an excuse to continue to work on 1.2. >>>> >>> >>> This seems like a fine proposal. However, as a practical matter, there >>> are very few changes one could make to DTLS that would not also apply to >>> TLS, so aside from DTLS-SRTP cipher suites, I'm not sure how much >>> difference it makes. >>> >> >> Makes sense, let's just not try to prove a negative in insisting that >> DTLS-SRTP cipher suites are the only such thing. >> >> "Further, TLS 1.3 use is widespread, and new protocols should require >> and assume its existence. DTLS 1.3 is a newer specification. New >> algorithms or extensions that apply solely to DTLS, such as DTLS-SRTP >> cipher suites, will be considered for DTLS 1.2." >> >> thanks, >> Rob >> >>
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
