Re: [IPsec] WGLC on draft-ietf-ipsecme-ddos-protection-04

> On Mar 5, 2016, at 5:11 AM, Valery Smyslov wrote: > >> If there is no consensus about puzzles, perhaps we should leave that >> part out of the document? > > I had an impression that threre was a consensus when > the document was adopted by WG. In any case, I think that it

Re: [IPsec] WGLC on draft-ietf-ipsecme-ddos-protection-04

Hi Valery, Responses inline. Thanks! Tommy > On Mar 5, 2016, at 2:00 AM, Valery Smyslov wrote: > > Hi Tommy, > > thank you for your comments. > I tend to agree with Paul that I find it unlikely, from an implementor’s standpoint, that many Initiators will choose

Re: [IPsec] WGLC on draft-ietf-ipsecme-ddos-protection-04

If there is no consensus about puzzles, perhaps we should leave that part out of the document? I had an impression that threre was a consensus when the document was adopted by WG. In any case, I think that it is better to have an interoperable specification than to leave puzzles at all (and

Re: [IPsec] WGLC on draft-ietf-ipsecme-ddos-protection-04

Hi Paul, thank you for your comments. I think the document is well written with respect to DDOS. I like everything except the puzzles. It seems a lot of complexity for no gain, especially with the problem being that botnets are better at puzzle solving then mobile phones who want to not drain

Re: [IPsec] WGLC on draft-ietf-ipsecme-ddos-protection-04

Hi Tommy, thank you for your comments. I tend to agree with Paul that I find it unlikely, from an implementor’s standpoint, that many Initiators will choose to implement the puzzle logic, especially ones that are running on mobile devices. It is unlikely that the phones will be able to solve