Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 78.57143% with 6 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 81.44%. Comparing base (713910a) to head (f14e0b2).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #770      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   81.45%   81.44%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         102      103       +1     
  Lines        5689     5717      +28     
==========================================
+ Hits         4634     4656      +22     
- Misses        679      682       +3     
- Partials      376      379       +3     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

I am excited/curious to see how we do 1.2 and 1.3 in the code base at the same time?

@theodorsm Do you think you will share code between them, or will be a clear line in the code base? Do you think the code base will end up in a state where we can't make a release (but have a urgent 1.2 bug?)

@Sean-Der theo also talked about it here #738

@Sean-Der, @JoTurk Adding extension parsers shouldn't affect DTLS 1.2. I think it makes sense to have them in the master branch already. For more involved stuff we have to re-visit #738 (let's have a discussion about it there). crypto/tls implements all extensions side by side for tls 1.2 and tls 1.3

Also, fuzzing might be a bit overkill for this simple extension, but I think all unmarshalling of raw bytes should be fuzzed and this sets an easy example.

@JoTurk, thanks for the feedback! Should be fixed now.

Hey @theodorsm I'm late to the game, but wondering why you chose to name the type CookieExt and not just Cookie like all the existing/1.2 extensions e.g. ServerName, SupportedEllipticCurves, etc?

@adrianosela, I did break that naming scheme to prevent confusion about the legacy cookie field in the handshake messages:

DTLS 1.3 still keeps this field, but it must be empty.