Hi Ben,
To be frank, I'm actually surprised that this is even seen as a matter for discussion.
As developer, I'm surprised, that this discussion now spans a couple of years, starting on summer 2018 with: https://github.com/tlswg/dtls-conn-id/issues/8 There are many (proposed) changes since then. I already tried to point to that with my e-mail answer from 4. September >> That order was also discussed a lot. >> https://github.com/tlswg/dtls-conn-id/pull/29 >> I would prefer, if this is not changed again without strong arguments! For me, "cryptographic hygiene", which breaks the API, are not strong arguments. Sure, that's only my personal opinion. I'm not sure, if a new code-point helps, nor that a new one is emitted for changing a draft (I would not recommend to do so, draft is a draft). So let me try to find a end: As developer, I see it's very important to come to a stable definition of the MAC. If now the order of the cid/cid-length is changing the MAC (again), and in half a year the next "cryptographic hygiene" campaign removes the cid-length (because it's not on the header and some (including me) don't see the benefit), then FMPOV this "process" just demonstrates more weakness, than I appreciate. So: If there is a guideline for constructing MACs, is that guideline documented somewhere? If the guideline is changing over the time, are these changes documented? And I would really welcome, also based on the experience with the long history of this discussion, if more can give their feedback about changing the MAC again. Please, this year, not next :-). best regards Achim Kraus _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
