[TLS] Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-tls-super-jumbo-record-limit-02 (Ends 2025-11-25)

[Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>]

This seems OK to me.

The document doesn't really say what "invalid" means for the length encoding.  Does that mean the record is ignored, or does the connection break?  I think that the answer is the former for DTLS, the latter for TLS.  (Allowing the connection to break was probably a mistake in RFC 8449, but I think that was because of the possibility of layering on SCTP or other reliable medium.)  It might be worth saying that receiving a record length that starts with 0b11 should be treated as though the record were over-sized.  Error handling for that is well-specified.

I would not worry about the size adjustments in the AEAD limits.  Those 256 bytes don't change things at all and I think that the limits apply to plaintext sizes anyway (which can be up to 2^14.

Typo: AES-CGM 

On Wed, Nov 5, 2025, at 01:55, Sean Turner via Datatracker wrote:
> Subject: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-tls-super-jumbo-record-limit-02 (Ends
> 2025-11-25)
>
> This message starts a 3-week WG Last Call for this document.
>
> Abstract:
>    TLS 1.3 records limit the inner plaintext (TLSInnerPlaintext) size to
>    2^14 + 1 bytes, which includes one byte for the content type.
>    Records also have a 3-byte overhead due to the fixed opaque_type and
>    legacy_record_version fields.  This document defines a TLS extension
>    that allows endpoints to negotiate a larger maximum inner plaintext
>    size, up to 2^30 - 256 bytes, while reducing overhead.
>
> File can be retrieved from:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-super-jumbo-record-limit/
>
> Please review and indicate your support or objection to proceed with the
> publication of this document by replying to this email keeping [e-mail]
> in copy. Objections should be motivated and suggestions to resolve them are
> highly appreciated.
>
> Authors, and WG participants in general, are reminded again of the
> Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79
> [1]. Appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the
> provisions of BCP 78 [1] and BCP 79 [2] must be filed, if you are aware of
> any. Sanctions available for application to violators of IETF IPR Policy can
> be found at [3].
>
> Thank you.
>
> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp78/
> [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp79/
> [3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6701/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]