search

lwig-wg / protocol-comparison

Other
0 stars 0 forks source link

Comments from Achim Kraus #22

Closed emanjon closed 1 year ago

emanjon commented 1 year ago

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/6HOx9AD4vq21wg-BZDTznJItcXI/

Hi John,

just to mention, the CCM8 is also considered to be not recommended in the future (see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/WnRInwF-j0uZmLggFh37ySljnwE/). Wouldn't it make more sense to use then CCM instead (16 bytes tag length)?

I would appreciate, if the comparison DTLS vs. TLS mentions also the difference of UDP vs. TCP (8 vs. 24 bytes). And just a short sentence about some more bytes for additional messages used in TCP internally?

best regards Achim

emanjon commented 1 year ago

AES-CCM with 8 byte tag is the mandtory to implement according to {{RFC7925}}, {{I-D.ietf-uta-tls13-iot-profile}}, and {{I-D.ietf-core-oscore-edhoc}}. Current suggestion is to add information to the draft on how 16 bit tags would affect the numbers.

emanjon commented 1 year ago

Added text on UPD vs TCP to the handshake section with 24 bytes as typical. but also mention that the TCP header can have different sizes and a reference to RFC 9006

emanjon commented 1 year ago

Text on UDP vs TCP needs to be added to record layer section as well.

emanjon commented 1 year ago

Achim commented on CORE WG list that 24 bytes was a mistake and that 20 bytes, I.e. the minimum size for TCP is what he meant. I will update the document to say that 20 bytes is typical

emanjon commented 1 year ago

Fixed in master. Removed RFC 9006.