The -17 and -18 versions clearly states that it can be used with DTLS 1.3. The GitHub version, which I assume will be the basis for the RFC also explains the psk identity differences between 1.2 and 1.3, which is great. I don’t think there is a need to do anything more.
Regarding DTLS 1.3 support, I don’t think there is any need for a -bis version, DTLS 1.3 is to my understanding already supported by the current document thanks to IESG. John From: Carsten Bormann <c...@tzi.org> Date: Thursday, 4 November 2021 at 16:14 To: John Mattsson <john.matts...@ericsson.com> Cc: ace@ietf.org <ace@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Ace] Protocol Action: 'Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Profile for Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE)' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-ace-dtls-authorize-18.txt) On 2021-11-04, at 15:08, John Mattsson <john.mattsson=40ericsson....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > I think IESG should send any (D)TLS 1.2 only drafts back to the WGs from now > on. Since you made this comment on an approved document (which the IESG no longer gets to “send back”), I’m not sure I understand what you are trying to say, but I don’t agree with any of the possible interpretations. > A lot of SDOs and industries are working hard on updating all (D)TLS > applications to work also with 1.3. The last thing the world needs is more > 1.2 only standards. I don’t think we need to form a queue behind the completion of DTLS 1.3. This apparently will take some more time: https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=8ed7d76d-d14cee6d-8ed797f6-86fc6812c361-b378f81d3777bcda&q=1&e=5985dba9-7ace-4fe4-9ace-256b8615b396&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauth48%2FC321 2021-10-18: Received email from Eric Rescorla that an open technical issue is ongoing. However, we should already have been working on a -bis for the DTLS profile that also supports DTLS 1.3; I can certainly agree with that. Grüße, Carsten
_______________________________________________ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace