On Tue, 27 Jul 2010, Danny Mayer wrote:
Because the overhead cost is huge compared to the benefit and you are
adding a major increase in latency and probably jitter as a result.
Small and nimble is much better.
Is this a knee-jerk response or has this actually been investigated with a
50+ year lifecycle of the protocol in mind? CPUs have gained
AES-cryptography in hardware as of the past few years, the major reasons
(that it's quite an addition to the workload) for not doing it is going
away.
At least provide extensibility in the protocol so that this can be added
later, especially with the challenges you mention in mind.
See above. Also no discussions have been held on how you authenticate a
server (or for that matter a client if that even has value) so that it
does not depend on the clocks of each node in the network.
Then those discussions perhaps should be had.
If time and frequency is important then it's important enough for it to be
properly authenticated, and if authentication/signing is implemented, then
you've done most of the framework for encryption as well.
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: [email protected]
_______________________________________________
TICTOC mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc
