MOBIKE.
>
> Ciao
> Hannes
>
> From: TLS On Behalf Of Kristijan Sedlak
> Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2023 11:50 AM
> To:
> Subject: [TLS] [rfc9147] Clarification on DTLS 1.3 CID Retirement and Usage
>
> Dear IETF TLS Working Group,
>
> I am reaching out to
Dear IETF TLS Working Group,
I am reaching out to seek clarification on specific aspects of Connection
ID (CID) management in DTLS 1.3, as detailed in RFC 9147.
The current specification delineates the process for issuing new CIDs via a
NewConnectionId message. However, the methodology for retiri
that.
>>
>> > 3. A single endpoint acting as both client and server on the same
>> address.
>>
>> See the DTLS 1.2 role exchange discussion in LwM2M.
>> Even if a "central server" is used, there are corner cases, when
>> such a "DTLS
> On 6 Jan 2023, at 18:39, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2023 at 9:28 AM Kristijan Sedlak <mailto:xpeperm...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > If I understand correctly, the issue here is a difference between DTLS and
>> > "Datagram cTLS&
> If I understand correctly, the issue here is a difference between DTLS and
> "Datagram cTLS". In DTLS, the syntax allows a client to parse handshake
> messages from the server and discover that the message is actually a
> ClientHello. I don't know that this is a good idea, or actually
> impleme
ome initiator then you don't need to initiate a new connection when "the
>> algorithm" requires connection establishment.
>>
>> I hope the above makes sense.
>
>
>>
>> K
>>
>>> On 4 Jan 2023, at 17:10, Eric Rescorla >> &l
4, 2023 at 6:30 AM Ben Schwartz
> mailto:40google@dmarc.ietf.org>>
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 7:50 AM Kristijan Sedlak > <mailto:xpeperm...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> Hey,
>>>
>>> The record layer of the cTLS skips the "profile_id"
146) where record distinction is much
needed.
I certainly hope this will not be overlooked in cTLS because I'm really excited
about its potential. Please reconsider.
Thank you, Ben.
Kristijan
> On 4 Jan 2023, at 15:29, Ben Schwartz wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at
for this, right?
Thanks.
K
> On 4 Jan 2023, at 15:07, Ben Schwartz wrote:
>
> Coalescing threads.
>
> On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 6:09 AM Kristijan Sedlak <mailto:xpeperm...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> CTLS looks interesting.
>>
>> 1. Is it too early for us developers
Hey,
The record layer of the cTLS skips the "profile_id" in the CTLSServerPlaintext.
I wonder how will an endpoint correctly distinguish between multiple,
CID-ext-based CTLSClientPlaintext requests and CTLSServerPlaintext responses
when the same socket is used for client and server communicatio
Hello,
The spec states that a client needs to inform the server about the profile it
is planning to use (profile_id in the record's header). Does this mean that
endpoints should all share the same knowledge about available profiles or is
there a predefined list of profiles provided by IETF? How
CTLS looks interesting.
1. Is it too early for us developers to start working on implementations?
2. Is this the way where UDP-based TLS is going in general or is it just yet
another experiment built for specific use cases and is not intended for general
use? Will cTLS be the new dTLS? Can we
ciency might suffer.
>
> Ciao
> Hannes
>
> From: TLS On Behalf Of Eric Rescorla
> Sent: Friday, December 9, 2022 3:28 PM
> To: Kristijan Sedlak ;
> Cc: architecture-disc...@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [TLS] [arch-d] Question regarding Connection ID (CID) in DTLS
>
Hey Ilari,
thank’s for replying. I did verify the transcript as well. Everything seems to
be correct. I bet if it wasn't the 1-RTT and 0-RTT(no-early-data) would fail
too. Something weird is going on only in 0-RTT(early-data) case.
Can you maybe point me to an URL with the correct TLS1.3 implem
scorla wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 8, 2022 at 11:52 PM Ilari Liusvaara <mailto:ilariliusva...@welho.com>> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 08, 2022 at 08:15:41PM +0200, Kristijan Sedlak wrote:
> > Hello everyone.
> >
> > I decided to get involved here since I hit
!
Kristijan
> On 9 Aug 2022, at 18:16, Ilari Liusvaara wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 09:05:31AM +0200, Kristijan Sedlak wrote:
>>
>> thank’s for replying. I did verify the transcript as well. Everything
>> seems to be correct. I bet if it wasn't
Aug 2022, at 09:05, Kristijan Sedlak wrote:
>
> Hey Ilari,
>
> thank’s for replying. I did verify the transcript as well. Everything seems
> to be correct. I bet if it wasn't the 1-RTT and 0-RTT(no-early-data) would
> fail too. Something weird is going on only in 0-RTT(earl
Hello everyone.
I decided to get involved here since I hit a dead end when resolving an
Alert(20) error that I get from almost all servers when using PSK with
EarlyData.
Here's the initial issue I opened
https://github.com/thekuwayama/tttls1.3/issues/48. It relates to a specific
implementati
18 matches
Mail list logo
