OK but we would expect the peer to process CID-less records if they are coalesced?
-Ekr On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 6:39 PM Martin Thomson <m...@lowentropy.net> wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020, at 11:24, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 4:54 PM Martin Thomson <m...@lowentropy.net> > wrote: > > > I prefer Ekr's solution, but I would go with that being a > recommendation (SHOULD) as opposed to a requirement (MUST). > > > > Can you clarify where you think we should say SHOULD? > > The security considerations seems right. After the list of improvements > over DTLS 1.2 CID. You would say that an endpoint that is asked to provide > a CID SHOULD provide one in every record (with the compact header, > etc...). If it does not, then it might be possible for an attacker to use > that record to confirm guesses about linkability between two paths. Also, > omitting the CID might make it hard to route datagrams. > > With all of this, you might want a section heading for all the CID stuff. >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
