On 17/03/2015 17:48 pm, Joe Touch wrote:
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.
Hmm... can you please say more about why there wouldn't be a path to
upgrade to v1?
Whatever foundation you pick now will have consequences.
That, granted. 1994, first month on the road, they separated the
webpages into HTTPS and HTTP coz crypto was too slow. We're still paying...
iang
_______________________________________________
Tcpinc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
