I think maybe what Mirja is implying is that it's okay to break TCP
(i.e., not fall back to unencrypted) if the two peers explicitly set
their roles locally to the same thing. TCP-ENO-aware applications that
set the role are assumed to get it right and not set both to A or both
to B.
Question re:
Kyle Rose kr...@krose.org writes:
I think maybe what Mirja is implying is that it's okay to break TCP
(i.e., not fall back to unencrypted) if the two peers explicitly set
their roles locally to the same thing. TCP-ENO-aware applications that
set the role are assumed to get it right and not
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 10:32 AM, David Mazieres
dm-list-tcpcr...@scs.stanford.edu wrote:
Kyle Rose kr...@krose.org writes:
I think maybe what Mirja is implying is that it's okay to break TCP
(i.e., not fall back to unencrypted) if the two peers explicitly set
their roles locally to the
Mirja K=C3=BChlewind mirja.kuehlew...@tik.ee.ethz.ch writes:
Hi David,
I believe the point is, if you have already broken the tie via
out-of-band signal and both endpoints have already decided who will be
the opener (host A) and responder (host B), why do you still need to
write this
