While I'm sceptical of a need to send nearly 2^32 byte records, or
that it would increase performance, the draft is well thought out
and detailed enough. I wouldn't be opposed to it.
Not being compatible with TLS 1.2 middleboxes is a problem too...
I think that precludes it from being "Recommended = Y".
On Friday, 25 October 2024 04:46:00 CEST, Sean Turner wrote:
At the TLS meeting at IETF 119 we discussed the Large Record
Sizes for TLS and DTLS I-D; see [0] and [1]. There has been some
list discussion; see [2] and [3]. The I-D has been revised a few
times since IETF 119 to incorporate list feedback. This message
is to judge consensus on whether there is support to adopt this
I-D. If you support adoption and are willing to review and
contribute text, please send a message to the list. If you do
not support adoption of this draft, please send a message to the
list and indicate why. This call will close on November 7, 2024.
Thanks,
Deirdre, Joe, and Sean
[0]
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mattsson-tls-super-jumbo-record-limit/
[1]
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/119/materials/slides-119-tls-large-record-sizes-for-tls-and-dtls-00
[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/ZnGzqIWOkpm_F6zaqAxxtReHpVg/
[3] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/cRH9x6nbLeAnkG-fhOS3ASDA3oU/
--
Regards,
Alicja (nee Hubert) Kario
Principal Quality Engineer, RHEL Crypto team
Web: www.cz.redhat.com
Red Hat Czech s.r.o., Purkyňova 115, 612 00, Brno, Czech Republic
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
