Re: [TLS] Connection ID Draft

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 6:11 AM, Fossati, Thomas (Nokia - GB/Cambridge, UK)
<thomas.fossati@nokia.com> wrote:

> Hi Matt,
>
> On 13/10/2017, 14:15, "TLS on behalf of Matt Caswell" <
> tls-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of frodo@baggins.org> wrote:
> > Recently I met with Yin Xinxing and we have had much the same
> > conversation about what a Connection ID draft would need to do, and
> > how we could detect its use on the wire. Mechanisms we talked about
> > included setting something in the "length" field, using ContentType or
> > using version. IMO using "length" is just horrible. I'm also not keen
> > on version - it further complicates the "is this version greater than,
> > equal to, or less than this other version" question. It's already
> > slightly complicated in code that implements both TLS and DTLS due to
> > DTLS versions being high and decrementing for a new version. I foresee
> > lots of subtle bugs and problems from reusing "version". In my mind
> > ContentType is the way to go.
>
> Re: the length hack.  I agree with you that it is not the right way to
> go here.
>
> Re: CT vs version, a couple of quick thoughts:
> - I'm still unconvinced that CT is the right place to signify a change
>   in the parsing logics that effectively spans all CTs;
> - Besides, ISTM that version is the only field that would potentially
>   work for 1.3 as well as 1.2?
>

We expect to remove version in the 1.3 encrypted record format,

-Ekr

>
> Cheers,
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>