Re: [TLS] Fwd: Re: AD review of draft-ietf-tls-dtls-connection-id-07

[Achim Kraus <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ben,

> Sure, there's pretty standard common-knowledge guidance, though I'm not
> sure it's documented anyplace particularly discoverable:
>
> - include in the MAC as much application/protocol context and protocol
>    fields as you can without breaking operation of the procotol
> - ensure that the mapping from (set of protocol fields and values derived
>    from application context) to (bytes given as input to the MAC function) is
>    an injective mapping
>
> In some (many?) cases, there is not any additional contextual information
> available, and the protocol header itself has a deterministic/fixed-length
> encoding, so both points can be achieved by just using the protocol
> header/payload as it appears on the wire as MAC input.  For better or for
> worse, the current construction in the -07 diverges significantly from the
> actual protocol header, so we have to do a bit of thinking to ensure that
> we are compliant to the guidelines (that I just described, so I assume you
> did not previously think about them in that formulation).
>

Hope, I'm not again catched by my bad english :-):

If the forumlation refers to draft-ietf-tls-dtls-connection-id-07 (and
not my e-mails), I can't say, what was thought or not by the authors. My
role in that discussion quite a year ago, was just to ask, which of the
many variants should then be chosen in order not to change it every year.

That's also the main thing, which drives me to this endless discussion.
If it changes again, try to change it that last time.

best regards
Achim Kraus