On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 11:16:08AM -0800, Paul Hoffman wrote: > > On 13 Dec 2016, at 6:46, Shane Kerr wrote: > > >IIRC the idea of using IPsec was also discussed somewhere. IIRC, IPsec > >may have problems traversing NAT. It is also usually implemented by the > >kernel, which may cause deployment issues. I *want* IPsec to be an > >option here, but realistically I don't think it is. > > IPsec will always have worse characteristics for DOS than DTLS, and probably > worse than TLS. Why do want it to be an option here? > > >The other alternative is to invent some novel crypto (fun but > >ill-advised) > > If what we invent has better characteristics than DTLS or TLS, that means > that the TLS WG failed to find something that we could. That seems > *incredibly* unlikely, given the people active in the two WGs.
If you mean state size per connection, doing better than TLS seems very easy. E.g. if you don't need rekeying, you don't need to keep ladders. Or if you really want to save space, use the same keys in both directions, with different nonce spaces. -Ilari _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
