This was addressed in -42. On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 9:38 PM Benjamin Kaduk <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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
