Re: [TLS] DTLS 1.2: Call for spec ambiguities

["tom.petch" <cfinss at dial.pipex.com>]

Not an ambiguity - RFC4347 is very clear - but I have struggled to understand
whether or not updates to base TLS apply to DTLS or not (eg new cipher suites
such as draft-ietf-tls-ecdhe-psk-01.txt ,
RFC4366).  RFC4347 does say that new cipher suites should specify if and how
they apply, but in practice, that does not seem to have happened.

And I echo the point about PMTU; I have seen DTLS criticised as being wholy
unrealistic about PMTU, on some very unexpected mailing lists.

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Rescorla" <ekr at networkresonance.com>
To: <tls at ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 3:24 AM
Subject: [TLS] DTLS 1.2: Call for spec ambiguities


> The plan I proposed in Philadelphia for DTLS 1.2 includes
> clarification of any issues that weren't clear in RFC 4347.
> I intend to collect a list of those issues and then
> have discussion/propose resolutions on the mailing list.
> I'm already aware of three such issues:
>
> - Inclusion of the first ClientHello and HelloVerifyRequest
>   in CertificateVerify
> - Handshake header inclusion in message hashes
> - Whether PMTU discovery makes sense
>
> The first two seem to be pretty simple and have obvious
> answers. The third requires talking to the TSV area.
>
> If WG members are aware of other issues, can you mail them
> to me or the list by the end of April? I'll then summarize
> on the list and start threads to discuss them.
>
> -Ekr
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls

_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls