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

[Achim Kraus <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ben,

>
> To be frank, I'm actually surprised that this is even seen as a matter for
> discussion.

As developer, I'm surprised, that this discussion now spans a couple of
years, starting on summer 2018 with:

https://github.com/tlswg/dtls-conn-id/issues/8

There are many (proposed) changes since then. I already tried to point
to that with my e-mail answer from 4. September

 >> That order was also discussed a lot.
 >> https://github.com/tlswg/dtls-conn-id/pull/29
 >> I would prefer, if this is not changed again without strong arguments!

For me, "cryptographic hygiene", which breaks the API, are not strong
arguments. Sure, that's only my personal opinion. I'm not sure, if a new
code-point helps, nor that a new one is emitted for changing a draft (I
would not recommend to do so, draft is a draft).

So let me try to find a end:
As developer, I see it's very important to come to a stable definition
of the MAC. If now the order of the cid/cid-length is changing the MAC
(again), and in half a year the next "cryptographic hygiene" campaign
removes the cid-length (because it's not on the header and some
(including me) don't see the benefit), then FMPOV this "process" just
demonstrates more weakness, than I appreciate.

So:
If there is a guideline for constructing MACs, is that guideline
documented somewhere?
If the guideline is changing over the time, are these changes documented?

And I would really welcome, also based on the experience with the long
history of this discussion, if more can give their feedback about
changing the MAC again. Please, this year, not next :-).

best regards
Achim Kraus