Hi Martin, Thanks for starting the separate thread to cover the transport topics.
I'll trim heavily to call out one topic that might benefit from some attention from the working group... On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 02:42:00PM -0700, Martin Duke via Datatracker wrote: > > Finally, a really weird one. Reading this document and references to > connection > ID prompted to me to think how QUIC-LB could apply to DTLS. The result is > here: > https://github.com/quicwg/load-balancers/pull/106/files. Please note the > rather > unfortunate third-to-last paragraph. I'm happy to take the answer that this > use > case doesn't matter, since I made it up today. But if it does, it would be > very > helpful if (1) DTLS 1.3 clients MUST include a connection_id extension in > their > ClientHello, even if zero length, and/or (2) this draft updated 4.1.4 of 8446 > to allow the server to include connection_id in HelloRetryRequest even if the > client didn't offer it. Thoughts? (To over-summarize: the proposal to make connection_id mandatory in DTLS 1.3 ClientHello is an attempt to support the case where a single load balancer fronts for both DTLS 1.3 and QUIC servers and connection IDs are required. If the client does not send the extension in this case the DTLS server is toast and will not get its packets reliably.) -Ben _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
