(rewriting the subject line back to the header thread) On 30/07/2014 04:20 am, David Mazieres expires 2014-10-27 PDT wrote:
> Look, all of these proposals can obviously run into issues with > particularly aggressive middleboxes. But at least in the case of > tcpcrypt, we've been working on this for years and have actual > deployment experience. So the stuff does actually work with the common > middleboxes like NATs. While there are certainly open issues to > discuss, do give us some credit for overcoming a lot of the most basic > problems like this. So, that should be the answer to "how much header is protected?" It is protected to the extent that proposed and tested solutions find it reasonable to protect. Let the data decide. Am I the only one who finds the thread surreal? The answer to this: Marcelo wrote: > As we discussed in the meeting, we should try to make some design > decisions for TCPINC. > One of them is whether to protect or not the TCP header. is clearly, not to decide. The charter should leave the level of TCP header protection open. May the best proposal win. iang _______________________________________________ Tcpinc mailing list Tcpinc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
