ianG writes:
> > Where you in the WG meeting (or listening in remotely)?
>
> No, 'fraid not.
Note, that you can watch the recorded show at meetecho... Some people
did say that tcpinc was one of the most entertaining sessions, so it
might be worth of it (or not :-)
http://ietf92.conf.meetecho.com
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 8:44 AM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor
wrote:
> On Tue 2015-03-31 10:02:38 -0400, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 7:01 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> >> Either that or (my preference) specify an AEAD (combined encryption
> >> and integrity) algorithm such as AES-GCM or
Greetings, all,
> On 31 Mar 2015, at 17:44, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>
> On Tue 2015-03-31 10:02:38 -0400, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 7:01 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>>> Either that or (my preference) specify an AEAD (combined encryption
>>> and integrity) algorithm such as
On Tue 2015-03-31 10:02:38 -0400, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 7:01 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>> Either that or (my preference) specify an AEAD (combined encryption
>> and integrity) algorithm such as AES-GCM or ChaCha/Poly1305.
>> It's always hard to read community consensus, but
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 7:01 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 7:38 PM, Tim Shepard wrote:
>
>>
>> > > It seems to me you have a choice of what sort of TLV encoding to use
>> > > at this point. Is there any good reason not do use the same sort of
>> > > TLV scheme that TLS
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 7:38 PM, Tim Shepard wrote:
>
> > > It seems to me you have a choice of what sort of TLV encoding to use
> > > at this point. Is there any good reason not do use the same sort of
> > > TLV scheme that TLS uses today, so that at least as far as the TLV
> > > framing proto
> > It seems to me you have a choice of what sort of TLV encoding to use
> > at this point. Is there any good reason not do use the same sort of
> > TLV scheme that TLS uses today, so that at least as far as the TLV
> > framing protocol the two proposals would be the same?
>
> As far as I under
Tim Shepard writes:
> It seems to me you have a choice of what sort of TLV encoding to use
> at this point. Is there any good reason not do use the same sort of
> TLV scheme that TLS uses today, so that at least as far as the TLV
> framing protocol the two proposals would be the same?
As far a
On 30/03/2015 19:23 pm, Tim Shepard wrote:
Surely the better direction would be to move towards what TCP does? We
are fundamentally talking about TCP, so its methods and manners should
dominate, no?
Most discussions I have seen about the low level framing of TLS &
friends indicate it is wildl
>
>
> Surely the better direction would be to move towards what TCP does? We
> are fundamentally talking about TCP, so its methods and manners should
> dominate, no?
>
> Most discussions I have seen about the low level framing of TLS &
> friends indicate it is wildly complicated and overdone
On 30/03/2015 18:25 pm, Tim Shepard wrote:
we no longer MAC the header. You can download the code from our TLV branch
at:
It seems to me you have a choice of what sort of TLV encoding to use
at this point. Is there any good reason not do use the same sort of
TLV scheme that TLS uses today,
> we no longer MAC the header. You can download the code from our TLV branch
> at:
It seems to me you have a choice of what sort of TLV encoding to use
at this point. Is there any good reason not do use the same sort of
TLV scheme that TLS uses today, so that at least as far as the TLV
framing
All,
As per the meeting feedback, we started implementing tcpcrypt using TLV and
we no longer MAC the header. You can download the code from our TLV branch
at:
git clone https://github.com/scslab/tcpcrypt.git
git checkout tlv
We also set up:
http://tlv.tcpcrypt.org
On that site, you'll get a
13 matches
Mail list logo
