Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 Record Layer Format

2017-03-08 Thread Martin Thomson
On 9 March 2017 at 08:46, Eric Rescorla wrote: > FWIW, I think DTLS 1.3 should just do this (and other header shortening > stuff). > I don't know of any evidence that there are policy enforcement boxes for > DTLS Definitely. I also think that DTLS 1.3 could stand to lose a few sequence number an

Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 Record Layer Format

2017-03-08 Thread Eric Rescorla
FWIW, I think DTLS 1.3 should just do this (and other header shortening stuff). I don't know of any evidence that there are policy enforcement boxes for DTLS -Ekr On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 1:27 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > On 03/08/2017 04:25 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote: > > Hi Ilari, > > yes, I a

Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 Record Layer Format

2017-03-08 Thread Benjamin Kaduk
On 03/08/2017 04:25 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote: > Hi Ilari, > > yes, I am exactly talking about these bytes that are useless to send > around in some deployment environments. > > I would expect to at least provide the option of not sending the data in > some cases would be useful. > I would not e

Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 Record Layer Format

2017-03-08 Thread Hannes Tschofenig
Hi Ilari, yes, I am exactly talking about these bytes that are useless to send around in some deployment environments. I would expect to at least provide the option of not sending the data in some cases would be useful. Ciao Hannes On 03/06/2017 04:55 PM, Ilari Liusvaara wrote: > On Mon, Mar 06

Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 Record Layer Format

2017-03-06 Thread Eric Rescorla
We (Firefox) have been running an experiment to measure this, but we don't yet have anything to share about it. I expect by IETF, however. Not saying that these results will be dispositive, but I should have something. -Ekr On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Adam Langley wrote: > On Mon, Mar 6,

Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 Record Layer Format

2017-03-06 Thread Adam Langley
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 7:55 AM, Ilari Liusvaara wrote: >> Sorry if I missed information about the outcome of these deployment >> tests but the current spec version still has the old record layer format. > > Yeah, I haven't seen those results either. We have not yet gotten around to doing those te

Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 Record Layer Format

2017-03-06 Thread Ilari Liusvaara
On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 10:11:58AM +0100, Hannes Tschofenig wrote: > Hi all, > > at the Seoul IETF meeting it was mentioned that the record layer format > may be simplified (by removing unused fields) if deployment tests real > no problems. > > Sorry if I missed information about the outcome of t

[TLS] TLS 1.3 Record Layer Format

2017-03-06 Thread Hannes Tschofenig
Hi all, at the Seoul IETF meeting it was mentioned that the record layer format may be simplified (by removing unused fields) if deployment tests real no problems. Sorry if I missed information about the outcome of these deployment tests but the current spec version still has the old record layer