On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 8:07 PM Martin Thomson <[email protected]> wrote:
> This seems OK to me. > > The document doesn't really say what "invalid" means for the length > encoding. Does that mean the record is ignored, or does the connection > break? I think that the answer is the former for DTLS, the latter for > TLS. (Allowing the connection to break was probably a mistake in RFC 8449, > but I think that was because of the possibility of layering on SCTP or > other reliable medium.) It might be worth saying that receiving a record > length that starts with 0b11 should be treated as though the record were > over-sized. Error handling for that is well-specified. > I concur with MT that malformed length encodings should not cause connection termination in DTLS. -Ekr > I would not worry about the size adjustments in the AEAD limits. Those > 256 bytes don't change things at all and I think that the limits apply to > plaintext sizes anyway (which can be up to 2^14. > > Typo: AES-CGM > > On Wed, Nov 5, 2025, at 01:55, Sean Turner via Datatracker wrote: > > Subject: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-tls-super-jumbo-record-limit-02 (Ends > > 2025-11-25) > > > > This message starts a 3-week WG Last Call for this document. > > > > Abstract: > > TLS 1.3 records limit the inner plaintext (TLSInnerPlaintext) size to > > 2^14 + 1 bytes, which includes one byte for the content type. > > Records also have a 3-byte overhead due to the fixed opaque_type and > > legacy_record_version fields. This document defines a TLS extension > > that allows endpoints to negotiate a larger maximum inner plaintext > > size, up to 2^30 - 256 bytes, while reducing overhead. > > > > File can be retrieved from: > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-super-jumbo-record-limit/ > > > > Please review and indicate your support or objection to proceed with the > > publication of this document by replying to this email keeping > [email protected] > > in copy. Objections should be motivated and suggestions to resolve them > are > > highly appreciated. > > > > Authors, and WG participants in general, are reminded again of the > > Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in > BCP 79 > > [1]. Appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the > > provisions of BCP 78 [1] and BCP 79 [2] must be filed, if you are aware > of > > any. Sanctions available for application to violators of IETF IPR Policy > can > > be found at [3]. > > > > Thank you. > > > > [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp78/ > > [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp79/ > > [3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6701/ > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > TLS mailing list -- [email protected] > > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
