Re: [TLS] WG adoption call for draft-tschofenig-tls-dtls-rrc: redux

2021-05-28 Thread Sean Turner
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

Re: [TLS] WG adoption call for draft-tschofenig-tls-dtls-rrc: redux

2021-05-06 Thread Hannes Tschofenig
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

Re: [TLS] WG adoption call for draft-tschofenig-tls-dtls-rrc: redux

2021-05-05 Thread Thomas Fossati
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

Re: [TLS] WG adoption call for draft-tschofenig-tls-dtls-rrc: redux

2021-05-04 Thread Martin Thomson
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

Re: [TLS] WG adoption call for draft-tschofenig-tls-dtls-rrc: redux

2021-05-04 Thread Russ Housley
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

Re: [TLS] WG adoption call for draft-tschofenig-tls-dtls-rrc: redux

2021-05-04 Thread Salz, Rich
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

Re: [TLS] WG adoption call for draft-tschofenig-tls-dtls-rrc: redux

2021-05-04 Thread Simon Bernard
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

Re: [TLS] WG adoption call for draft-tschofenig-tls-dtls-rrc: redux

2021-05-04 Thread Achim Kraus
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