Re: [TLS] Banning implicit CIDs in DTLS

[Thomas Fossati <[e-mail]>]

On 24/05/2020, 20:45, "Eric Rescorla" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> In what context do you have a use for implicit CIDs?

The specific use case I had in mind is that of an endpoint sending small
and frequent application data units to the same peer - e.g., sensor
readings through CoAP observe.  In this (and similar) situation(s) where
the payload / header ratio is low one wants to have as little transport
overhead as possible.

Now, it turns out in the specific situation (and whenever the data
framing is provided by a higher layer protocol - CoAP, SCTP, DNS) one
might as well buffer and coalesce all the application stuff into one
single record, making the need for CID compression moot.

So, I am now convinced I don't have a compelling case to bring to the
table and might as well move into Martin's "vanishingly small use cases"
camp, therefore subscribing the gist of PR#148.


PS  A note about the more general argument of a pure pseudo-header
approach: it'd enable compression boxes at ingress into a constrained
network, which would be really useful.  Without a thorough analysis wrt
header malleability this is unfortunately out of reach.

--

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.