>> huh? i see the following:
> Arrgh. My bad. (I read the intro, I read TCP-AO, and I skipped to the
> end of the list.)
it is a carefully constructed yet painful compromise with reality.
> Never mind, what I want is already there.
do i get a refund? :)
randy
_
On Aug 2, 2011, at 11:37 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> Greetings again. Section 7 of draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-14 has a list
>> of supported transports. However, it does not list the one that some
>> people have said that they expect it to be run under sometimes, namely
>> bare TCP.
>
> huh? i see the
> Greetings again. Section 7 of draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-14 has a list
> of supported transports. However, it does not list the one that some
> people have said that they expect it to be run under sometimes, namely
> bare TCP.
huh? i see the following:
Caches and routers MUST implement unprot
On Aug 2, 2011, at 10:47 AM, Montgomery, Douglas wrote:
> As a practical matter, what do you think the effect of the "MUST" in the
> last sentence will be?
That vendors cannot provide bare TCP as a transport in a system that contains
no other security mechanisms.
On Aug 2, 2011, at 10:42 AM,
As a practical matter, what do you think the effect of the "MUST" in the
last sentence will be?
--
Doug Montgomery Mgr. Internet & Scalable Systems Research / ITL / NIST
On 8/2/11 1:34 PM, "Paul Hoffman" wrote:
>Greetings again. Section 7 of draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-14 has a list of
>su
On 8/2/2011 10:34 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
Greetings again. Section 7 of draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-14 has a list of
supported transports. However, it does not list the one that some people have
said that they expect it to be run under sometimes, namely bare TCP. If we all
know that this is lik
Greetings again. Section 7 of draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-14 has a list of
supported transports. However, it does not list the one that some people have
said that they expect it to be run under sometimes, namely bare TCP. If we all
know that this is likely to be the case, we should have it listed i
