in this scenario encryption is a "nice to have" but
does not seem "necessary", whereas integrity protection and source
authentication is definitely necessary. I.e., if it's a trade-off
between encryption and authentication/integrity I would choose
authentication/integrity.
Just
Hi,
"Beck, Stefan" <s.b...@osram.com> writes:
[snip]
> even supporting the "low-latency" requirements we need, also considering the
[snip]
Could you provide some more concrete numbers for your definition of
"low-latency" requirements?
T
lieve that the WG should adopt this document at least until
>> such a time as a version has been released which does a substantially
>> better job of restricting the scope of the problem to be solved. If
>> the WG then decides to relax that scope so be it.
>>
>> Jim
-dere
nce of signature validation, not signature
creation, since we believe that is the more common operation.
> Any other comments on the draft are also welcome.
-derek
--
Derek Atkins 617-623-3745
de...@ihtfp.com www.ihtfp.com
Computer an
On Thu, February 9, 2017 10:49 am, Eliot Lear wrote:
>
>
> On 2/9/17 4:45 PM, Derek Atkins wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> "Panos Kampanakis (pkampana)" <pkamp...@cisco.com> writes:
>>
>>> I am not saying symmetric keys are better than public key au
ragment packets I would expect transmission time to be well
fast enough that computation is the major issue?
> Abhinav
-derek
--
Derek Atkins 617-623-3745
de...@ihtfp.com www.ihtfp.com
Computer and Internet Security Consultant
__
