On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 01:20:41PM -0700, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> >For all the other aspects of BTNS (IPsec connection latching [and
> >channel binding], IPsec APIs, leap-of-faith IPsec) agreeing on a
> >globally shared secret does not come close to being sufficient.
> 
> Fully agree. BTNS will definitely give you more than just one-off 
> encrypted tunnels, once the work is finished. But then, it should 
> probably be called MMTBTNS (Much More Than...).

I strongly dislike the WG's name.  Suffice it to say that it was not my
idea :); it created a lot of controversy at the time, though perhaps
that controversy helped sell the idea ("why would you want this silly,
insecure stuff?" "because it enables this other actually secure stuff").

Nico
-- 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to