On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie > wrote:
> > > 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:-) > It would no doubt depend what you put there. -Ekr > > S. > > > > > What do you think? > > > > regards, > > Nikos > > > > _______________________________________________ > > TLS mailing list > > TLS@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls > > > > > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > TLS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls > >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
