On 5/30/22 13:03, Eric Rescorla wrote:
On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 9:38 AM Robert Moskowitz
wrote:
Great to know. thanks. My feable attempts to find this were
coming up empty. But now I should be able to put some things
together.
I am assuming that the DTLS header is part
On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 9:38 AM Robert Moskowitz
wrote:
> Great to know. thanks. My feable attempts to find this were coming up
> empty. But now I should be able to put some things together.
>
> I am assuming that the DTLS header is part of the AEAD protection. Thus I
> can squeeze out the UD
Great to know. thanks. My feable attempts to find this were coming up
empty. But now I should be able to put some things together.
I am assuming that the DTLS header is part of the AEAD protection. Thus
I can squeeze out the UDP CRC?
I recall seeing length in the DTLS header, but I do not
We spent a fair bit of time working to shrink the DTLS 1.3 record layer, so
I'm not sure how much room there is for optimization.
See: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9147.html#name-the-dtls-record-layer
Specifically, the longest header (w/o CID) is 5 octets and the shortest is
2 octets. The seq
Greetings Hannes,
This is for the record layer. And I really don't know how much would be
gained.
But as I would see it, this use of SCHC would be for UDP/DTLS/cipher.
Since it is starting with UDP, SCHC would have to be an IP Protocol (not
currently defined as such). So you loose 1 byte
Hi all,
I am also struggling a bit with the nonce construction for DTLS 1.3 now that we
have moved to a 128-bit record_number.
The TLS 1.3 per-record nonce for the AEAD construction is formed as follows:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8446#section-5.3
1. The 64-bit record sequence
Bob, is this about compressing the DTLS record layer or the DTLS handshake
protocol?
For the former, I wonder how much is there actually to compress (when using
DTLS 1.3)?
From: TLS On Behalf Of Eric Rescorla
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2022 5:30 PM
To: Robert Moskowitz
Cc:
Subject: Re: [TLS] SCHC
