On Mon, Apr 27, 2020, at 17:06, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> (*): Even if we optimize the CID away with cTLS the question about the
> security implications will surface again.
I think that cTLS is the answer to the size issue. But there, the rule tends
to be that removing from the wire doesn't
Draft minutes from today's virtual interim are now available [1]. Please send
any edits or corrections to the list (or as PRs to the repository) as needed.
Thanks to Rich and Peter for taking notes!
Best,
Chris, on behalf of the chairs
[1]
> -Original Message-
> From: Christopher Wood
> Sent: Friday, April 24, 2020 7:09 PM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott ; TLS@ietf.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [TLS] Comments on draft-ietf-tls-external-psk-
> importer-04
[snip]
> > > Hmm, not quite. The statement intends to say that if you need
On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 02:10:02PM -0700, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Transport Layer Security WG of the IETF.
>
> Title : Compact TLS 1.3
>
On 26/04/2020, 15:49, "Christopher Wood" wrote:
> To clarify (as the request was about prohibiting implicit CIDs and not
> more generally about what's included in the AAD), you'd prefer we
> allow implicit CIDs, correct?
Hi Chris, correct.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any
Hi Ekr,
* And I am proposing removing implicit CIDs
That would be a bit unfortunate. When we put multiple DTLS records in a single
UDP datagram then the CID in all but the first datagram is redundant*.
Ciao
Hannes
(*): Even if we optimize the CID away with cTLS the question about the
