> On Mar 20, 2018, at 18:45, John Mattsson wrote:
>
> Correct, I just copied pasted the length of the arrays, should be length =
> cid_length + encrypted_record.length.
>
> The example was taken from draft-ietf-tls-tls13-27. If I understand
> correctly, It seems like the same circular definit
The issue is that the "TLSCiphertext.length" is the same field as
the "uint16 length", so you are saying that this field has the value
of "cid_length plus itself", which is impossible in integers modulo
[a value larger than cid_length]. In the "formal" grammar, you'd
need to define a new field.
-
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 11:29:09PM +, John Mattsson wrote:
> I don’t think it is required either, the mechanisms in
> draft-schmertmann-dice-codtls and draft-friel-tls-over-http clearly wotks,
> but Hannes Tschofenig brought it up as a new mechanism that can be used to
> simplify things in A
Correct, I just copied pasted the length of the arrays, should be length =
cid_length + encrypted_record.length.
The example was taken from draft-ietf-tls-tls13-27. If I understand correctly,
It seems like the same circular definition is done there as well
--
for ATLS if we can use Connection ID.
From: "r...@ipv.sx"
Date: Tuesday, 20 March 2018 at 17:37
To: "Fossati, Thomas (Nokia - GB/Cambridge)"
Cc: John Mattsson , "TLS@ietf.org"
Subject: Re: [TLS] Connection ID in TLS
I don't think Connection-ID is really requ
> On Mar 20, 2018, at 11:38, John Mattsson wrote:
>
> I think Connection ID is an important enabler for end-to-end security with
> (D)TLS. There seems to be important use cases for connection ID in TLS as
> well, see https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/atlas. At the Monday
> afternoon TLS
I don't think Connection-ID is really required for ATLS. As Carsten and
Owen mentioned in the side meeting, there are a few ways to use HTTP to
correlate the relevant messages.
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 5:15 PM, Fossati, Thomas (Nokia - GB/Cambridge) <
thomas.foss...@nokia.com> wrote:
> On 20/03/2
On 20/03/2018, 16:38, "TLS on behalf of John Mattsson" wrote:
> At the Monday afternoon TLS session, it was stated that Connection ID
> in TLS was unemployable in the wild due to middleboxes. Couldn't that
> be solved by placing the cid field after the length field?
Are you referring to slide 13
