Hi!
It appears the we have consensus to adopt this I-D as a WG item.
I will work with the authors to establish the GH repo and get the I-D submitted
as a WG item.
spt (for the chairs)
> On May 3, 2021, at 11:44, Sean Turner wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> We would like to re-run the WG adoption call for
Hi Sean,
Thanks for keeping track of the backlog of drafts.
I am still interested to do this work and I contributed to the draft because a
generic mechanism for doing the return routability check is better than pushing
the responsibility to the application layer. There is always the risk that
On 03/05/2021, 16:46, "Sean Turner" wrote:
> Hi!
>
> We would like to re-run the WG adoption call for "Return Routability
> Check for DTLS 1.2 and DTLS 1.3”. Please state whether you support
> adoption of this draft as a WG item by posting a message to the TLS
> list by 2359 UTC 24 May 2021. Plea
What Russ said here is important. However, I don't see any reason that this
record should not be protected.
I also think that we can use a content type outside of the scarce range we have
for TLS record content types. This only makes sense for use with DTLS 1.3 and
DTLS 1.2 with connection ID
This document seems fine to me, but the first paragraph of Section 3 needs some
work. This can be sorted out after adoption.
Section 3 begins with:
When a record with CID is received that has the source address of the
enclosing UDP datagram different from the one previously associated
I'm not a strong DTLS expert, but this seems like important work. We should
adopt it. I promise to read and review.
___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
I support adoption. It should be useful to deal with this issue at DTLS
level.
Le 03/05/2021 à 17:44, Sean Turner a écrit :
Hi!
We would like to re-run the WG adoption call for "Return Routability Check for
DTLS 1.2 and DTLS 1.3”. Please state whether you support adoption of this draft as a
Hello Sean,
Hello List,
FMPOV, that dtls-rrc work is very welcome!
All use-cases, where the northbound-layers don't provide solutions for
that, will benefit from it.
best regards
Achim Kraus
Am 03.05.21 um 17:44 schrieb Sean Turner:
Hi!
We would like to re-run the WG adoption call for "Return
I think this is an important protocol feature and I'm in favour of
adoption. I'm also happy to invest cycles to bring it to fruition.
I agree with Martin that the currently defined mechanism is simplistic,
and I expect it to change substantially. Hopefully, we can reuse at
least some of the good
Just a reminder that this WG adoption call is still ongoing.
spt
> On Jul 22, 2020, at 14:55, Sean Turner wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> The authors of "Return Routability Check for DTLS 1.2 and DTLS 1.3" have
> asked for adoption of their draft as a WG item. Please state whether you
> support adoption
Hello Martin,
Hello list,
> That said, I believe that this falls a long way short of addressing
the attacks that I'm aware of. But that assumes we share an
understanding about what those attacks are. To begin with, we probably
need a clearer description of goals.
Fully agreed. Unfortunately, t
I'm OK with adoption.
That said, I believe that this falls a long way short of addressing the attacks
that I'm aware of. But that assumes we share an understanding about what those
attacks are. To begin with, we probably need a clearer description of goals.
To give an idea, address valida
Not much of a DTLS user, but I respect that the authors are. I support
adoption and will review it.
___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
13 matches
Mail list logo
