Hi Hannes, My reading is that only compression/decompression applies to our case. Fragmentation is optional and only concerns ipv6. I did not intent to make the comment at an inappropriate time, but if so, please consider it when it is appropriate.
Yours, Daniel On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 10:34 PM <hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net> wrote: > Hi Daniel > > > > Although inappropriate to discuss at the time of the adoption call I > wanted to point out that I looked at SCHC and was surprised to learn that > it is more than a compression scheme but also includes a protocol for > adding reliability. In my reading is essentially a replacement for 6lowpan. > Unfortunately, this design decision does not make it a well suited > mechanism for a generic compression mechanism. I am happy to get convinced > otherwise. > > > > Ciao > > Hannes > > > > *From:* TLS <tls-boun...@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Daniel Migault > *Sent:* Friday, November 22, 2019 10:20 AM > *To:* Panos Kampanakis (pkampana) <pkamp...@cisco.com> > *Cc:* TLS List <tls@ietf.org> > *Subject:* Re: [TLS] Adoption call for draft-rescorla-tls-ctls > > > > I clearly support the adoption of the work, but it seems important to > ensure cTLS integrates or remains in line with the work on compression that > has been accomplished at the IETF - SCHC defined in lpwan might be a > starting point. It also seems important to me that cTLS defines mechanisms > that could be reused as TLS 1.3 evolves. > > > > Yours, > > Daniel > > > > On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 12:39 AM Panos Kampanakis (pkampana) < > pkamp...@cisco.com> wrote: > > +1, support adoption. > > > > *From:* TLS <tls-boun...@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Dmitry Belyavsky > *Sent:* Thursday, November 21, 2019 4:46 AM > *To:* Sean Turner <s...@sn3rd.com> > *Cc:* TLS List <tls@ietf.org> > *Subject:* Re: [TLS] Adoption call for draft-rescorla-tls-ctls > > > > I support the adoption. > > > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 8:36 AM Sean Turner <s...@sn3rd.com> wrote: > > At IETF 105, ekr presented cTLS (Compact TLS) [0][1][2] to both the TLS WG > and the LAKE BOF, which is now a chartered WG [3]. After some discussions, > the ADs suggested [4] that the TLS WG consider whether this draft be > adopted as a TLS WG item. LAKE could then later specify/refer/adopt/profile > it, as appropriate. The authors revised cTLS and presented the revised > draft at IETF 106 [5]. At IETF 106 there was support for adoption of cTLS > as a WG item.. To confirm this on the list: if you believe that the TLS WG > should not adopt this as a WG item, then please let the chairs know by > posting a message to the TLS list by 2359 UTC 13 December 2019 (and say > why). > > NOTE: > : If the consensus is that this draft should be adopted as a WG item, then > this will necessarily result in a WG rechartering discussions. We would > have gotten to this rechartering discussion anyway now that DTLS 1.3 is > progressing out of the WG. > > Thanks, > Chris, Joe, and Sean > > [0] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/slides-105-tls-sessa-ctls/ > [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rescorla-tls-ctls/ > [2] https://github.com/ekr/draft-rescorla-tls-ctls > [3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rescorla-tls-ctls/ > [4] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lake/kACwW7PXrmTRa4PvXQ0TA34xCvk > [5] > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/slides-106-tls-compact-tls-13-00.pdf > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > TLS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls > > > > > -- > > SY, Dmitry Belyavsky > > _______________________________________________ > 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 >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
