Subject: [TLS] WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-dtls-connection-id

From: Joseph Salowey <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 14:39:53 +0700

This is the working group last call for the "Connection Identifiers for
DTLS 1.2" draft available at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-dtls-connection-id/. Please
review the document and send your comments to the list by 2359 UTC on 30
November 2018.

Thanks,
Chris, Joe, and Sean

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 14:02:27 +1100

Comments and PRs in GitHub:
https://github.com/tlswg/dtls-conn-id/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aopen+author%3Amartinthomson+

One thing I didn't add as an issue, but is worth considering: This
makes zero mention of DTLS 1.3 and the vastly superior design that is
available there.  I think that it should make that reference.
On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 6:40 PM Joseph Salowey <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> This is the working group last call for the "Connection Identifiers for DTLS 1.2" draft available at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-dtls-connection-id/. Please review the document and send your comments to the list by 2359 UTC on 30 November 2018.
>
> Thanks,
> Chris, Joe, and Sean
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls

---

From: Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 16:29:27 +0100

On Wed, 2018-11-07 at 14:39 +0700, Joseph Salowey wrote:
> This is the working group last call for the "Connection Identifiers
> for DTLS 1.2" draft available at 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-dtls-connection-id/.
> Please review the document and send your comments to the list by 2359
> UTC on 30 November 2018.
> 

Hi,

It is a very good document, I support its publication. Some editorial comments follow.

I think the paragraph of the section 3 that starts:
"This is effectively the simplest possible design that will work."

looks like unnecessary; why would previous designs be mentioned unless
there is a challenge for this protocol and in that case an appendix
may be more suitable. What about replacing with:
"The design is kept simple to ease implementation and deployment"

In security considerations the following two paragraphs seem to be part
of a single one, that is separated by a However? (i.e., replace Importantly with However),
or do I missread it?

   With multi-homing, an adversary is able to correlate the
   communication interaction over the two paths, which adds further
   privacy concerns.

   Importantly, the sequence number makes it possible for a passive
   attacker to correlate packets across CID changes.  Thus, even if a
   client/server pair do a rehandshake to change CID, that does not
   provide much privacy benefit.

regards,
Nikos