On 14/11/16 12:58, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos 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.
I'd be interested in an analysis of the potential privacy impacts of this. Isn't this more or less the same as doing SPUD-for-DTLS? (If not, sorry for dragging in controversy:-) S. > > What do you think? > > regards, > Nikos > > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > TLS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
