HI John,

Am 21.04.21 um 00:42 schrieb John Scudder:

    3. Section 6:

       *  There is a strategy for ensuring that the new peer address
    is able
          to receive and process DTLS records.  No such strategy is
    defined
          in this specification.

    This is a little mind-boggling to me. I understand this to mean I
    can’t send
    the new address a DTLS record unless I’ve already ensured it can
    receive and
    process that record, right? This seems almost like a classic
    Catch-22. I feel
    like I must be missing something.


This specification *only* allows you to mux, but doesn't allow you to
migrate.
We could probably make this point clearer.

Yes, I think so. Various things led me to think this was supposed to be
a feature. For starters, the abstract:

    A CID is an identifier carried in the record layer header that gives
    the recipient additional information for selecting the appropriate
    security association.  In "classical" DTLS, selecting a security
    association of an incoming DTLS record is accomplished with the help
    of the 5-tuple.  If the source IP address and/or source port changes
    during the lifetime of an ongoing DTLS session then the receiver will
    be unable to locate the correct security context.


It’s true the abstract doesn’t promise that I can migrate to the new
address, but I felt led in that direction. But more to the point, §6 itself:

    When a record with a CID is received that has a source address
    different than the one currently associated with the DTLS connection,
    the receiver MUST NOT replace the address it uses for sending records
    to its peer with the source address specified in the received
    datagram unless the following three conditions are met:


If I understand your reply correctly, the quoted sentence could end “…
unless the following three conditions are met (which will never
happen):”. Since that seems both capricious and pointless, I still think
I’m missing something. Is it that you envision a future specification
that does define a strategy that will fulfill the third condition? That
might be worth saying, if so.


Yes, see
https://github.com/tlswg/dtls-conn-id/issues/103#issuecomment-822306643

best regards
Achim Kraus

_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls

Reply via email to