[tsvwg] Updates on draft-ietf-tsvwg-dtls-over-sctp-bis

[Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Martin Thomson did a review on https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-dtls-over-sctp-bis/
And submitted a number of issues on our github tracker: https://github.com/gloinul/draft-westerlund-tsvwg-dtls-over-sctp-bis/issues we have resolved a number of purely editorial aspects and are working through the issues that results in editorial changes. The result of these changes are available in the editors copy: https://gloinul.github.io/draft-westerlund-tsvwg-dtls-over-sctp-bis/#go.draft-ietf-tsvwg-dtls-over-sctp-bis.html

We have six pull requests with text changes we want to inform the WG of the proposal and give people time now to provide input. We plan to merge these in a week. https://github.com/gloinul/draft-westerlund-tsvwg-dtls-over-sctp-bis/pulls

These PRs include

  *   #170: updated messages to include DTLS CID when ready to close a DTLS Connection.
  *   #169: Dealing with buffering and flow control and DTLS sequence number wraps
  *   #171: Clarifying an action possible to prevent a peer to rekey to quickly.
  *   #168: Using smaller DTLS Record sizes
  *   #167: Making clear that RFC 8449 must be used for limiting DTLS Record Sizes
  *   #165: Created a unique DTLS exporter label for this specification and not use RFC 6083’s.

We will continue to draft proposals addressing the rest of the issues or why not we are addressing it. For example Issue #141 (https://github.com/gloinul/draft-westerlund-tsvwg-dtls-over-sctp-bis/issues/141) is one issue we don’t intended to address. As what would be efficient would be to move the encryption down to the SCTP packet level where it would be tracked by TSN, and the rekeying would be done on a limited window. However, such a change requires to refactor the SCTP implementation and also SCTP packets and appear non-practical.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund