Hi Eric, You had mentioned last time that if the scenario really warranted, we can define new cipher suites for this rather than defining a new extension. Do you still think it would be a good idea for us to propose a draft on the same?
Thanks! Regards, Jay On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote: > Andreas, > > DTLS 1.3 will behave this way by default, so it would be better to just > move to 1.3 rather than patching 1.2. > > -Ekr > > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 5:32 AM, Andreas Walz < > andreas.w...@hs-offenburg.de> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I stumbled upon an expired draft introducing a new (D)TLS extension to >> omit explicit nonces in (D)TLS AEAD cipher modes >> (draft-jay-tls-omit-aead-explicit-nonce-extension). For a number of >> cipher suites, this would allow to reduce the per-record overhead in (D)TLS >> by 8 bytes. >> >> Is there any interest in breathing new life into that draft? In our >> scenario (DTLS for a legacy industrial wireless communication system) every >> single byte counts. That is why we would strongly support reviving this >> draft... >> >> Thanks and Cheers, >> Andi Walz >> >> >> ___________________________________ >> >> Andreas Walz >> Research Engineer >> Institute of reliable Embedded Systems and Communication Electronics >> (ivESK) >> Offenburg University of Applied Sciences, 77652 Offenburg, Germany >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
