On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 6:11 AM, Fossati, Thomas (Nokia - GB/Cambridge, UK) <thomas.foss...@nokia.com> wrote:
> 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? > We expect to remove version in the 1.3 encrypted record format, -Ekr > > Cheers, > > _______________________________________________ > 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
