eabase

@kFYatek > > When a new security context is created (e.g. TLS/DTLS), the Client MUST register again to the LwM2M Server. > > When the LwM2M Client IP address changes...

@Kucmasz Thanks that helps! Another question: **Why does the `Endpoint name` and `Key Identity` strings have to be the same?** This is stated here: https://iotdevzone.avsystem.com/docs/Demo_Projects/Implementing_LwM2M_objects_on_RaspberryPi/#step-4-connecting-to-the-lwm2m-server

`DTLS 1.2` was officially released 2012. `DTLS 1.3` was officially released 2022. Maybe time to update and future proof. The list of advantages of DTLS 1.3 over 1.2 is huge...

Why not merge this?

@SebDominguez You need to also install the `mbedtls-dev` (development libraries), that's why it failed in the first place. Please note that different linux distros have different naming conventions for the...

@sbernard31 @rettichschnidi Hi! Thanks for the quick feedback and clarification! > At LWM2M level, the specification v1.0 and v1.1 doesn't mention DTLS v1.3. No, but LwM2M v1.2 is [mentioned](http://www.openmobilealliance.org/release/LightweightM2M/V1_2_1-20221209-A/OMA-TS-LightweightM2M_Transport-V1_2_1-20221209-A.pdf), while...

@boaks @sbernard31 Hi Guys! Again, thanks for quick feedback. > One of the main new features of DTLS 1.3, the Connection ID, is backported to DTLS 1.2 via RFC 9146....

@danielinux > Correction: wolfSSL does support DTLS 1.3 since ... 1. [wolfSSL](https://github.com/wolfssl/wolfssl) (corrected link) - is **not** a *server*, just an SSL library. 2. `TLS 1.3` is *not* the same...

@boaks > I'm not sure, if you mix up things. Why should DTLS 1.2 or 1.3 have any influence on the CBOR encoding? It could very well be, as the...

@boaks > [CBOR] I can't see a relation to DTLS 1.2/1.3. You are right. Sorry for the confusion. The table I showed was originally based on a LwM2M comparison. So...