> On 2. Apr 2021, at 23:46, Rick van Rein wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I was looking into DTLS/SCTP as a carrier for Diameter. Lengths in
> Diameter are 24 bit to avoid ever having to bother about that, but when
> run over the preferred DTLS/SCTP carrier this may yet be a concern, so
> that its only o
> On 5. Apr 2021, at 14:12, Rick van Rein wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Larger frames than the MTU are not just a problem to Diameter; they also
> complicate the normal handshake in DTLS which is a bit of a misfit with
> DTLS delivery semantics.
>
> Since the version is bit-swapped in DTLS, each record
> On 12. Nov 2021, at 12:22, John Mattsson
> wrote:
>
> Thanks Achim,
>
> My interest in DTLS Connection IDs is mainly for non-constrained use cases
> such as DTLS/SCTP (DTLS over SCTP) between nodes in the 5G core network.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-dtls-over-sct
> On 23 Nov 2016, at 09:50, Yoav Nir wrote:
>
>
> On 23 Nov 2016, at 10:30, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2016-11-23 at 10:05 +0200, Yoav Nir wrote:
>>> Hi, Nikos
>>>
>>> On 23 Nov 2016, at 9:06, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
>>> wrote:
>>>
Hi,
Up to the current dr
> On 24 Nov 2016, at 20:50, Thomas Pornin wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I know that I am a bit late to the party, but I have a suggestion for
> the upcoming TLS 1.3.
>
> Context: I am interested in TLS support in constrained architectures,
> specifically those which have very little RAM. I recently pu
> On 25. Jul 2024, at 09:39, Sean Turner wrote:
>
> At the IETF 120 TLS session there was interest in adopting the Extended Key
> Update for TLS 1.3 I-D
> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tschofenig-tls-extended-key-update/).
> This message starts a two-week call for adoption. If you su
> On 25. Oct 2024, at 13:56, Alicja Kario wrote:
>
> While I'm sceptical of a need to send nearly 2^32 byte records, or
> that it would increase performance, the draft is well thought out
> and detailed enough. I wouldn't be opposed to it.
Hi Alicja,
there is at least one use case of this extens
