Watson Ladd watsonbl...@gmail.com writes:
Actually, people have *very* strong opinions about crypto and are
willing to lobby pretty hard for particular algorithms and protocols.
We should ensure such lobbying is directed towards OS vendors *after*
TCP-ENO is standardized, not towards the
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 7:29 AM, Ilari Liusvaara
ilari.liusva...@elisanet.fi wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 07:22:23AM -0700, Watson Ladd wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 6:33 AM, David Mazieres
This is a misreading: I'm proposing that at any time there is only one
suite that everyone uses, and
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 6:33 AM, David Mazieres
dm-list-tcpcr...@scs.stanford.edu wrote:
Watson Ladd watsonbl...@gmail.com writes:
Actually, people have *very* strong opinions about crypto and are
willing to lobby pretty hard for particular algorithms and protocols.
We should ensure such
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015, at 02:33 PM, David Mazieres wrote:
Watson Ladd watsonbl...@gmail.com writes:
The problem is with the existence of sites where only one algorithm
must be used, and the OS is configured accordingly.
Hard-coding global cipher priority is likely to exacerbate this
On Aug 24, 2015, at 5:31 PM, Watson Ladd watsonbl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 7:29 AM, Ilari Liusvaara
ilari.liusva...@elisanet.fi wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 07:22:23AM -0700, Watson Ladd wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 6:33 AM, David Mazieres
This is a misreading:
S 4.1.
Given that session IDs are required to be unique, why bother with the
spec-id prefix?
Precisely to guarantee this uniqueness. If one spec uses SHA-256 for
session IDs and another uses Keccak, no standard cryptographic
assumption implies uniqueness without that tag byte.
Can you
Watson Ladd watsonbl...@gmail.com writes:
So this protocol negotiates how to negotiate?
It doesn't have to. This may be one of the differences between tcpcrypt
and TCP-use-TLS, where tcpcrypt is in the process ditching its own
negotiation mechanism in favor of ENO, while TLS will just keep the
On 24 August 2015 at 14:20, Watson Ladd watsonbl...@gmail.com wrote:
So this protocol negotiates how to negotiate?
That's my read on it. That's a natural consequence of layering. You
can make your own assessment about whether that is too much, but in
this case, I don't think that it is.
On 24/08/15 22:44, David Mazieres wrote:
Stephen Farrell stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie writes:
On 24/08/15 21:08, Stephen Kent wrote:
Watson,
based on many years of experience dealin wit this sort of issue
I suggest that the relative merits (strength, etc.) of cipher suites
form a lattice,
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Stephen Kent k...@bbn.com wrote:
Watson,
based on many years of experience dealin wit this sort of issue
I suggest that the relative merits (strength, etc.) of cipher suites
form a lattice, not a total order.
Every lattice has a compatible total order, and
Stephen Farrell stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie writes:
On 24/08/15 21:08, Stephen Kent wrote:
Watson,
based on many years of experience dealin wit this sort of issue
I suggest that the relative merits (strength, etc.) of cipher suites
form a lattice, not a total order.
Folks - Steve is I
11 matches
Mail list logo
