Re: [TLS] Banning implicit CIDs in DTLS

On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 11:01 AM Thomas Fossati <Thomas.Fossati@arm.com>
wrote:

> On 22/05/2020, 01:09, "Christopher Wood" <caw@heapingbits.net> wrote:
> > On Thu, May 21, 2020, at 9:22 AM, Thomas Fossati wrote:
> > > Hi Chris,
> > >
> > > On 21/05/2020, 17:00, "Christopher Wood" <caw@heapingbits.net>
> > > wrote:
> > > > *One proposal to address this is by extending the AAD to include
> > > > the pseudo-header. However, the chairs feel this is an unnecessary
> > > > divergence from QUIC.
> > >
> > > I don't understand the "unnecessary" in the above para, i.e., why
> > > are we so tied to QUIC in this case?  I'm asking because it looks
> > > like this was a core criterion in the Chairs' proposal.
>
> > Sorry for the confusion! The point here was that QUIC authenticates
> > what's on the wire, which we felt was important. I should have spelled
> > that out. There are of course other things to consider, as Martin
> > points out.
>
> OK, thanks for clarifying.
>
> I want to be able to use implicit CIDs so I don't support PR#148 as-is.
>

In what context do you have a use for implicit CIDs?

-Ekr

> As much as I'd like to go for a pure pseudo-header approach, I don't
> think I have enough data at this point in time that I'd feel safe going
> that way.
>
> Since adding implicit CID to the AD doesn't look like a big deal in
> terms of performance overhead, that would be my preference.
>
> cheers, t
>
> IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are
> confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the
> contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the
> information in any medium. Thank you.
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>