Re: [TLS] Omitting length in DTLS

I have filed a PR to fix this.

On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 10:28 PM Ilari Liusvaara <ilariliusvaara@welho.com>
wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 11:18:28AM +1100, Martin Thomson wrote:
> > > Omitting the length field MUST only be used for data which is
> > > protected with one of the application_traffic_secret values, and
> > > not for messages protected with either
> [sender]_handshake_traffic_sercret
> > > or [sender]_early_traffic_secret values.  When using an
> > > [sender]_application_traffic_secret for message protection,
> > > Implementations MAY include the length field at their discretion.
> >
> > This seems like an unnecessarily strong requirement that I couldn't
> > find any discussion about.  I do seem to remember some discussion,
> > but I couldn't find it.
>
> I actually tried finding rationale for that, and concluded that it was
> likely a mistake.
>
> Originally the requirement was not to use short headers with initial
> handshake packets. That was sensible back then.
>
> However, when unified headers were introduced, that requirement was
> changed to prohibition of omitting length, which does not make much
> sense to me. And I could not find any arguments for it.
>
>
>
> -Ilari
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>