Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 and max_fragment_length

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

On 03/14/2017 06:26 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
>
>
> Seems we’re in agreement. So how about modifying the sixth paragraph
> in section 5.4?
>
> OLD:
>    The presence of padding does not change the overall record size
>    limitations - the full fragment plaintext may not exceed 2^14 octets.
>
> NEW:
>    The presence of padding does not change the overall record size
>    limitations - the full fragment plaintext may not exceed 2^14 octets. If
>    the maximum fragment length is reduced by the presence of the 
>    max_fragment_length extension from [RFC6066] then the reduced limit 
>    applies to the full plaintext, including the padding.
>

That's probably fine, but maybe this one is better:

NEW:

   The presence of padding does not change the overall record size
   limitations - the full fragment plaintext may not exceed 2^14 octets. If

   the maximum fragment length is reduced, such as by the 

   max_fragment_length extension from [RFC6066], then the reduced limit 

   applies to the full plaintext, including the padding.


-Ben