On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 9:37 AM Kristijan Sedlak
wrote:
> Got it.
>
> 1. So we should not try to support DTLS and CTLS at the same time. As you
> say, it’s a breaking change. so it’s better to have two "dedicated"
> implementations.
>
In general, I would expect cTLS implementations to be part of
Got it.
1. So we should not try to support DTLS and CTLS at the same time. As you say,
it’s a breaking change. so it’s better to have two "dedicated" implementations.
2. You’ve mentioned profile_ids of 4 bytes being "well known”. We wait for
IANA to open a new registry for this, right?
Thanks
Coalescing threads.
On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 6:09 AM Kristijan Sedlak
wrote:
> CTLS looks interesting.
>
> 1. Is it too early for us developers to start working on implementations?
Now is a great time to start on an implementation!
2. Is this the way where UDP-based TLS is going in general or i
