Hi Matt, On 13/10/2017, 14:15, "TLS on behalf of Matt Caswell" <tls-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of fr...@baggins.org> wrote: > Recently I met with Yin Xinxing and we have had much the same > conversation about what a Connection ID draft would need to do, and > how we could detect its use on the wire. Mechanisms we talked about > included setting something in the "length" field, using ContentType or > using version. IMO using "length" is just horrible. I'm also not keen > on version - it further complicates the "is this version greater than, > equal to, or less than this other version" question. It's already > slightly complicated in code that implements both TLS and DTLS due to > DTLS versions being high and decrementing for a new version. I foresee > lots of subtle bugs and problems from reusing "version". In my mind > ContentType is the way to go.
Re: the length hack. I agree with you that it is not the right way to go here. Re: CT vs version, a couple of quick thoughts: - I'm still unconvinced that CT is the right place to signify a change in the parsing logics that effectively spans all CTs; - Besides, ISTM that version is the only field that would potentially work for 1.3 as well as 1.2? Cheers, _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
