Some editorial quirks
s.2
lacks the boiler plate of RFC8174
s.3
I found this unclear until I had understood it all (or perhaps I do not
understand it)
"...or again, alternately, to use a zero-length CID)."
This suggests that a zero length CID is valid in Application Data which
later text seems to contradict; otherwise I cannot see what this is saying.
" If DTLS peers have negotiated the use of a CIDs using the ClientHello
and the ServerHello messages "
arguably sending a zero CID and receiving a zero CID is a successful
Hello negotiation perhaps
" If DTLS peers have negotiated the use of a non-zero CID in at least
one direction, using the ClientHello and the ServerHello messages"
"The DTLS peers determine whether incoming and outgoing messages need.."
seems not to cater for unidirectional CIDs; perhaps
"The DTLS peers determine whether incoming or outgoing, or both,
messages need.. "
s.4
/always recieve CIDs/always receive CIDs/
s.5.1
"the with Encrypt-then-MAC processing described in [RFC7366]."
I do not understand why 'with' is needed
s.5.2
ditto
s.8
/this aspects SHOULD refuse/these aspects SHOULD refuse/
s.10
I would find this clearer as three sections for the three IANA actions
10.1 new column for ExtensionType
10.2 new value for ExtensionType
10.3 new value for ContentType
" IANA is requested to allocate an entry to the existing TLS
"ExtensionType Values" registry, defined in [RFC5246],.."
well no; whatever you think of RFC8447 the name has changed
" IANA is requested to allocate an entry to the existing "TLS
ExtensionType Values" registry, defined in [RFC5246],.."
or, if you are picky (which I am not),
IANA is requested to allocate an entry to the existing "TLS
"ExtensionType Values" registry, defined in [RFC5246], and
renamed by RFC8447
An extra column is added but I cannot see what value should be placed in
that column for existing entries.
"The tls12_cid ContentType is only applicable to DTLS 1.2."
Good information but I struggle to see what IANA will do with it; I see
nowhere for it to go.
Tom Petch
On 08/03/2021 11:19, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Transport Layer Security WG (tls) to
consider the following document: - 'Connection Identifiers for DTLS 1.2'
<draft-ietf-tls-dtls-connection-id-10.txt> as Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2021-03-28. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
Abstract
This document specifies the Connection ID (CID) construct for the
Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) protocol version 1.2.
A CID is an identifier carried in the record layer header that gives
the recipient additional information for selecting the appropriate
security association. In "classical" DTLS, selecting a security
association of an incoming DTLS record is accomplished with the help
of the 5-tuple. If the source IP address and/or source port changes
during the lifetime of an ongoing DTLS session then the receiver will
be unable to locate the correct security context.
The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-dtls-connection-id/
No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
IETF-Announce@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
.
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
