On Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 12:05 PM Ilari Liusvaara
wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 07:54:17AM -0500, David Benjamin wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 10:40 AM Ilari Liusvaara <
> ilariliusva...@welho.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 01:39:43PM -0500, David Benjamin wrote:
> >
> >
On Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 07:54:17AM -0500, David Benjamin wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 10:40 AM Ilari Liusvaara
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 01:39:43PM -0500, David Benjamin wrote:
>
> A thought: This is now a protocol change, but what if we defined a "oops"
> extension that simply
Hiya,
Given David's presentation and subsequent list discussion, it seems
extraordinarily clear that a bis document is needed here;-)
On 17/11/2024 12:54, David Benjamin wrote:
A thought: This is now a protocol change, but what if we defined a "oops"
extension that simply adds a dummy post-Fin
On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 10:40 AM Ilari Liusvaara
wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 01:39:43PM -0500, David Benjamin wrote:
> >
> > Not to say that every implementor would have noticed every issue (I'm
> sure
> > I overlooked some issues too), but I think DTLS's biggest challenge has
> > always bee
On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 01:39:43PM -0500, David Benjamin wrote:
>
> Not to say that every implementor would have noticed every issue (I'm sure
> I overlooked some issues too), but I think DTLS's biggest challenge has
> always been the relatively little attention it receives compared to TLS.
- Whe
Hi Folks,
There are a few instances of messages that we are trying to avoid on this
thread. We have contacted the posters, but we would like to remind folks to
try to keep the discussion civil and not send messages that are trying to
incite a combative response or messages that are singling out pa
> You mean "Google is putting massive amounts of pressure on people to try
and make sure that DTLS loses to QUIC"
Ah yes, that is why a Googler is actively implementing DTLS 1.3, spurring
this entire thread. To meet the “DTLS loses to QUIC” OKR.
On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 9:06 PM Peter Gutmann
wrot
, resea...@bensmyth.com
Cc: Andrei Popov , Joseph Salowey
, IETF TLS
Subject: [TLS] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: DTLS 1.3 bis
Ben Smyth writes:
>Datagram TLS over UDP (Userdata Datagram Protocol) is losing to Quic[k UDP
>Internet Connections]
You mean "Google is putting massive amounts of p
Hello Peter,
> Just thinking out loud here but could the transport folks define some
sort of
> reliable-UDP transport mechanism that you could then run whatever you
like
> over?
The benefit using DTLS/UDP instead of TLS/TCP is in my experience,
that the application decides for each "application
Christian Huitema writes:
>That chimes with David Benjamin's analysis about the "whole mess of
>transport-related concerns that just don't apply to TLS". The expertise for
>that is in the transport area, not in the TLS WG.
LDAP was once described as "a bunch of networking types trying to reinven
On 11/13/2024 6:06 PM, Peter Gutmann wrote:
Ben Smyth writes:
Datagram TLS over UDP (Userdata Datagram Protocol) is losing to Quic[k UDP
Internet Connections]
QUIC is not an acronym, see RFC 9000.
You mean "Google is putting massive amounts of pressure on people to try and
make sure that DT
Ben Smyth writes:
>Datagram TLS over UDP (Userdata Datagram Protocol) is losing to Quic[k UDP
>Internet Connections]
You mean "Google is putting massive amounts of pressure on people to try and
make sure that DTLS loses to QUIC" (or as one dev put it, "QUIC doesn't
deliver but no-one will say so
WebRTC uses DTLS and is the driver for DTLS in BoringSSL. Post-quantum DTLS
necessitates DTLS1.3.
On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 3:00 PM Ben Smyth wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Nov 2024, 19:39 David Benjamin, wrote:
>
>> FWIW, I did not read Watson's comment in any negative way and agree with
>> him. (And every
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024, 19:39 David Benjamin, wrote:
> FWIW, I did not read Watson's comment in any negative way and agree with
> him. (And everyone else. I think my feelings are "meh, let's just fix it"
> and "sure, whatever we can get".)
>
> Not to say that every implementor would have noticed eve
FWIW, I did not read Watson's comment in any negative way and agree with
him. (And everyone else. I think my feelings are "meh, let's just fix it"
and "sure, whatever we can get".)
Not to say that every implementor would have noticed every issue (I'm sure
I overlooked some issues too), but I think
David’s analysis is excellent; as a likely future implementor of DTLS 1.3 I’m
glad these spec bugs have been discovered. To what extent formal analysis would
be helpful here is not obvious.
I don’t recall: did we have interoperable implementations prior to shipping the
DTLS 1.3 spec?
Cheers,
16 matches
Mail list logo
