On 3/23/2015 12:22 PM, ianG wrote: > 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?
Decisions you make now may limit the ability to avoid active attacks, esp. during the SYN exchange. >> 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... Well, that split was arguably because of the lack of a way to negotiate optional security; even though that was addressed with STARTTLS just 5 years later, here we are another 20 after that and just a few weeks ago, SAAG still couldn't reach consensus on whether one port or two was preferred from a security viewpoint. Joe _______________________________________________ Tcpinc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
