Re: [TLS] draft-petithuguenin-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-00

[[e-mail] (Martin Rex)]

Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:
> 
> We should make a new IANA registry that keeps track of for each value
> of the first byte, which protocol it is allocated to. I would suggest
> that it require "Standards Action? to allocate a new code point to a
> protocol but of course one allocated to that protocol, the protocol
> would manager it within it?s existing IANA registry for that protocol
> with that protocols existing rules. 
> 
> The advantage of this is we can allocate the points as needed instead
> of guessing if TLS or STUN  or some new protocol will need a given
> number points. There is no implementation problem for the demux because
> things that use the new code points would know how to demux them. 

I'm slightly confused.  Is that first byte in Figure 3:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-petithuguenin-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-00#page-6

                    +----------------+
                    | 127 < B < 192 -+--> forward to RTP
                    |                |
        packet -->  |  19 < B < 64  -+--> forward to DTLS
                    |                |
                    |       B < 2   -+--> forward to STUN
                    +----------------+

     Figure 3: The DTLS-SRTP receiver's packet demultiplexing algorithm.
          Here the field B denotes the leading byte of the packet.

the actual "ContentType" byte of the (D)TLS record protocol,
which happens to currently be visible on the outside of the (D)TLS
record protocol with a fairly small set of values:

      enum {
           change_cipher_spec(20), alert(21), handshake(22),
           application_data(23), (255)
       } ContentType;


There has been a proposal to hide the ContentType for TLSv1.3
and break lots of existing software that relies on being able
to parse TLS records:

https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg13055.html


Will rfc5764 have to be added to the list of things that would break
by such a (needless) TLSv1.3 change?


-Martin