I have filed a PR to fix this. On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 10:28 PM Ilari Liusvaara <ilariliusva...@welho.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 11:18:28AM +1100, Martin Thomson wrote: > > > Omitting the length field MUST only be used for data which is > > > protected with one of the application_traffic_secret values, and > > > not for messages protected with either > [sender]_handshake_traffic_sercret > > > or [sender]_early_traffic_secret values. When using an > > > [sender]_application_traffic_secret for message protection, > > > Implementations MAY include the length field at their discretion. > > > > This seems like an unnecessarily strong requirement that I couldn't > > find any discussion about. I do seem to remember some discussion, > > but I couldn't find it. > > I actually tried finding rationale for that, and concluded that it was > likely a mistake. > > Originally the requirement was not to use short headers with initial > handshake packets. That was sensible back then. > > However, when unified headers were introduced, that requirement was > changed to prohibition of omitting length, which does not make much > sense to me. And I could not find any arguments for it. > > > > -Ilari > > _______________________________________________ > 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
