With no hats and repeating something I've said before. I'm sure either can work, and am confident that the WG will make whichever it chooses work. (And speedily I hope:-)
But I do have a concern that we're maybe putting too maybe eggs in the one TLS basket. If the WG picked tcpcrypt here then I think that might be right from the point of view of providing better genetic diversity and slightly better defense in depth. I do recognise that the argument that TLS has been better analysed is quite a good counter though, even if the particular pared down profile of TLS that'd be needed in the end hasn't been so analysed. S. On 16/03/15 15:43, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote: > We would like to ask the WG to express their support to adopt one (or > none) of the following documents as WG document that will serve as a > basis for the protocol specification. Of course, the draft, if adopted, > will need to updated according to the WG input. In particular, they need > to be updated to not protect the TCP header. > > > The candidate drafts are: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bittau-tcpinc-tcpcrypt/ > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rescorla-tcpinc-tls-option/ > > We plan to discuss this on the meeting but it would be useful to start > the discussion before the meeting, so if you can express your opinions > before the meeting, it would be helpful. > > Regards, marcelo (on behalf of the co chairs) > > _______________________________________________ > Tcpinc mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc > > _______________________________________________ Tcpinc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
