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