This would be my preferred resolution On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 8:59 AM Christopher Wood <c...@heapingbits.net> wrote:
> PR #148 in the DTLS 1.3 draft ( > https://github.com/tlswg/dtls13-spec/pull/148) proposes banning implicit > CIDs. This comes at an obvious cost in terms of bytes on the wire. However, > in discussions on a parallel thread [1 and related], it's noted that this > removes header malleability. > > Given that we don't have backing analysis suggesting that malleability > (with the other AAD properties) is safe*, the chairs propose merging this > PR as-is. To that end, please respond to the list by May 28, 2020, > indicating whether or not you support this PR. > > Thanks, > Chris, on behalf of the chairs > > *One proposal to address this is by extending the AAD to include the > pseudo-header. However, the chairs feel this is an unnecessary divergence > from QUIC. > > [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/kFnlBW-TmlArcU0lD9UQdf_1t_o/ > > _______________________________________________ > 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
