Hi Nikos, On 14/11/2016 12:58, "TLS on behalf of Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos" <tls-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of n...@redhat.com> wrote: >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?
In DTLS 1.3 we could probably re-purpose the version field to signify "header version" instead? _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
