This WGLC is now complete. We need more reviews, and likely a bit more work,
before moving this ahead. We'll run another WGLC once we have both.
Yoav, can you please have a look at the comments and concerns raised below and
address them as needed?
Thanks,
Chris, on behalf of the chairs
On Mon
Here are a few comments gathered from Verisign Labs on
draft-ietf-tls-external-psk-importer-04.
1. Overview of draft goals and techniques. We've summarized our understanding
of the draft here. Our subsequent comments are based on this understanding.
a. Goal: The draft's goal is to define a
Hi all,
To my understanding, DTLS 1.3 defines AEAD additional data for record protection
as the record header as seen on the wire. Quoting Draft 37, Section 4:
```
The entire header value shown in Figure 4 (but prior to record number
encryption) is used as as the additional data value for t
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 8:39 AM Hanno Becker wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> To my understanding, DTLS 1.3 defines AEAD additional data for record
> protection
> as the record header as seen on the wire. Quoting Draft 37, Section 4:
>
> ```
>The entire header value shown in Figure 4 (but prior to record
Inline...
> On 7 Apr 2020, at 1:39, Martin Thomson wrote:
>
> I like this work, but I don't believe this to be ready yet.
>
> S1
> None of the current proposed extensions are such that the server
> indicates support without the client first indicating support. So as
> not to preclude fut
I think there are two potential resolutions to your CID issue:
1. Cryptographically protect it as in
https://github.com/tlswg/dtls13-spec/pull/143
2. Forbid implicit CIDs (my preference) see:
https://github.com/tlswg/dtls13-spec/issues/144
Would like to hear what others in the WG think.
-Ekr
O
Thanks for the feedback, Scott! Please see inline below.
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020, at 6:57 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> 2. Technical comments.
>
> a. Distinct identities? Sec. 3 states "Non-imported and imported PSKs
> are distinct since their identities are different on the wire." We
> have t
Hi Ekr,
> 2. Forbid implicit CIDs (my preference) see:
> https://github.com/tlswg/dtls13-spec/issues/144
Considering the effort spent on shaving off bytes in the DTLS header,
I think re-introducing the explicit CID should be avoided. It seems
perfectly acceptable to me to have implicit header da
