LGTM. I would strike ", if these privacy properties are important in a given deployment" from the acknowledgments section (which is an odd place for the accompanying statement.
I would add an explicit note about the lack of CID update making this unsuitable for mobility scenarios. That's a common use case for this sort of mechanism, but this design lacks any defense against linkability. On Tue, Mar 5, 2019, at 03:43, Joseph Salowey wrote: > This is a working group last call for > draft-ietf-tls-dtls-connection-id-03. The last working group last call > resulted in some issues. The authors worked with the reviewers to > publish a new draft to address these issue. Please focus your review on > the changes since the previous last call. You can find a link to a diff > with the previous draft on the tools page [1]. Please response to the > list with any comments by 2359 UTC on 12 March 2019. > > Thanks, > > Chris, Joe and Sean > > [1] https://tools..ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tls-dtls-connection-id-03 > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tls-dtls-connection-id-03> > > _______________________________________________ > 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
