Hi, For draft‐mavrogiannopoulos‐dtls‐cid‐00 and we needed to extend the DTLS un-authenticated part of the DTLS record header with an additional field. That works well if this is the only draft ever extending the DTLS record header. If not, modification order would be undefined.
Would it make sense to introduce an extension header for DTLS 1.3 in the lines of the IPv6 extension headers? That would allow TLS extension negotiation to add more items on the un-authenticated header, and potentially also remove redundant headers. What do you think? regards, Nikos _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
