On 3/16/2015 3:03 PM, ianG wrote: > On 12/03/2015 09:29 am, Tero Kivinen wrote: > >> Anyways protection against prevasive monitoring is the important thing >> here, the limited protection against active attacks is secondary >> objective. > > That is my view. My sense is that TCPinc goes forward in v0 with only > passive capabilities, and is easily attacked. > > In v1, we might do better. But I don't get the feeling that we/the > group knows enough to lay down the solution without really trying it.
I appreciate that viewpoint, but it's also useful to recognize that there might not be an incremental path towards doing better in v1. Whatever foundation you pick now will have consequences. Joe _______________________________________________ Tcpinc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
