On 14 November 2016 at 21:58, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <n...@redhat.com> wrote: > 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.
Where is this draft? > 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. Without seeing the draft, I can't really say whether this is sensible, but I've been working on trimming the DTLS 1.3 header down to something sane. That might be incompatible with any attempt to add unauthenticated data to the header. _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
