With large flights, not only is a short timeout more dangerous, but you are more likely to get an ACK in the event of some loss that allows you to shortcut the timer anyway (i.e. However, I'm less comfortable with a potentially large server first flight, or a client second flight, likely leading to a large spurious retransmission. For a client first flight of one packet, it seems unobjectionable. This violation of RFC8961 ought to be explored further. In Sec 5.8.2, it is a significant change from DTLS 1.2 that the initial timeout is dropping from 1 sec to 100ms, and this is worthy of some discussion. + contains a complete list of message combinations that constitute contains a complete list of message combinations that consitute + packet loss causes noticeable problems, implementations MAY choose to packet loss causes noticeable problems implementations MAY choose to Outdated reference: draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate has been published as > tls-oldversions-deprecate-12, 21 January 2021, > TLSv1.1", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf. > Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC6347, but theĪbstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should. Know what you did with these suggestions. Incorporate in some way (or ignore), as you see fit. I agree with Martin Duke's DISCUSS position (also on 5.8.3).Īll comments below are very minor change suggestions that you may choose to
![mitchell 5.8.2 atch mitchell 5.8.2 atch](https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0319/4922/6029/products/IMG_0620_680x.png)
“allows” not “allow” (agreement in number) “The reader is also as to be familiar” s/as/assumed/Īlthough the cookie must allow the server to produce the rightĭTLS with connection IDs allow for endpoint addresses to Not enough: problems for whom? Noticeable by whom? How is this determined? Do you really mean I’m supposed to work this out dynamically as the text sort-of implies? Too much: if you’re not going to answer the foregoing, maybe don’t taunt me, and omit the clause entirely? Or, possibly a less vague rewrite could be in the nature of “if providing service to an application that is especially sensitive to packet loss”.
It seems to me as though “if packet loss causes noticeable problems” is saying either too much, or not enough. Specified for TCP to allow for packet reordering. Retain keying material from previous epochs for up to the default MSL Packet loss causes noticeable problems implementations MAY choose to
![mitchell 5.8.2 atch mitchell 5.8.2 atch](https://cdn-fr.thelittlegreenbag.fr/upload/artikelen/karlsson/hw-20/alarm-clock-iconic-matt/new/karlsson-alarm-clock-iconic-matt-dark-purple-ka5784pu-1-235.jpg)
Implementations SHOULD discard records from earlier epochs, but if I presume that if I added some more words to this, your intent is that the server maintains a retransmission timer *for messages other than HelloRetryRequest*. Interleaving multiple HelloRetryRequests. Will not itself be fragmented, thus avoiding concerns about The HelloRetryRequest is designed to be small enough that it HelloRetryRequest since this would require creating state on the Note that timeout and retransmission do not apply to the The server also maintains a retransmission timer and retransmits whenīut then you immediately tell me that it actually doesn’t: Then you tell me the server maintains a rexmit timer: You start with a figure illustrating a lost HelloRetryRequest. I found the explanatory text to be confusing. In particular I thought it was helpful that you noted important divergences from DTLS 1.2 in line and not just at the end.
#MITCHELL 5.8.2 ATCH SOFTWARE#
OEM images, diagrams and diagnostic flow charts Parts and labor information Maintenance schedules Manufacturer TSBs and Recalls Integrated estimating software OEM wiring diagrams with connector, ground, power distribution and splice information A2Z Component Search – the fastest route available to component information Whether you measure productivity by the number of vehicles repaired in a day, the variety of vehicles you’re able to work on, or the time spent on diagnosis and repair, using the right information and shop management tools is vital to the success of your business.Thanks for the quick response and update, I've cleared my discuss. The most comprehensive information for 1982 to present vehicles. ALLDATA 10.53 shops have fast access to the industry’s best information for vehicles from 1982 to present including TSBs, maintenance schedules, manufacturer recall information, OE solutions, and factory images and diagrams.
#MITCHELL 5.8.2 ATCH PROFESSIONAL#
ALLDATA Function: Professional repair shops need current, factory-correct information to meet the complex repair demands of today’s automotive industry.