On Tue, 31 May 2016, Waltermire, David A. (Fed) wrote:
From what I am reading, there isn't an interest in splitting puzzles out as
experimental. If you feel strongly that puzzles should be split out into a
separate experimental draft, please speak up. If we don't hear anything by
Monday,
6 2:05 AM
> To: Yoav Nir <ynir.i...@gmail.com>
> Cc: ipsec@ietf.org; p...@nohats.ca
> Subject: Re: [IPsec] Status of draft-ietf-ipsecme-ddos-protection
>
> >> The concern is not about stand-alone puzzles document. It is about an
> >> Experimental s
The concern is not about stand-alone puzzles document. It is about an
Experimental status
of that document versus Standards Track in the current draft. Vendors tend to
ignore Experimental RFCs.
The conventional wisdom is that vendors tend to ignore whatever status the IETF assigns to
> On 31 May 2016, at 8:01 AM, Valery Smyslov wrote:
>
> Hi Paul,
>
>>> On the other hand, if we go this way and give the puzzles stuff an
>>> Experimantal status, then probably very few vendors (if any) will implement
>>> it and the real problem of defending against
>>>
Hi Paul,
On the other hand, if we go this way and give the puzzles stuff an
Experimantal status, then probably very few vendors (if any) will implement
it and the real problem of defending against
(D)DoS attacks will remain unaddressed.
I don't think the puzzles implementation adoption will
On Thu, 26 May 2016, Valery Smyslov wrote:
On the other hand, if we go this way and give the puzzles stuff an
Experimantal status, then probably very few vendors (if any) will implement
it and the real problem of defending against
(D)DoS attacks will remain unaddressed.
I don't think the
Hi,
in Buenos-Aires it was expressed a proposal to split
the DDoS protection draft into two. One of them would
describe possible kinds of (D)DoS attacks and would
suggest some counter measures to thwart them without
introducing anything new into the IKEv2 protocol.
The other document (with