On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 4:12 PM, Fossati, Thomas (Nokia - GB/Cambridge) < thomas.foss...@nokia.com> wrote:
> On 04/03/2018, 23:12, "Martin Thomson" <martin.thom...@gmail.com> wrote: > > We are about to remove that bit from the QUIC packet. I don't see any > > advantage in adding it here. > > > > Can you explain in more detail who you think consumes this bit? > > Server or server-side middleware that doesn't know whether the packet > that needs parsing belongs to a session that negotiated CID or not. I'm > not sure the analogy with QUIC holds here: AFAIU, in QUIC the server can > always say "use CID when you are talking to me"; in DTLS, the server has > to live with a mix of CID and non-CID sessions. > Well, this actually isn't strictly true: the server could refuse to negotiate TLS 1.3 if the client didn't negotiate CID. And because you can distinguish TLS 1.3 from TLS 1.2, .... I genuinely can't see what advantage we get by not having its > presence explicitly signalled. Could you elaborate a bit on that? > Well, you're making every packet 1 byte bigger, for starters. -Ekr > Cheers, thanks > > _______________________________________________ > 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
