Joe, [snip].
> > One of the aims of the draft is to make > > the two protocols less distinguishable from one another to a > > network > > attacker who might prefer one over the other (and consider the > > other to > > be suspicious). A new port assignment fails to meet that goal. > > But using any existing ports for new behaviors is simply not your > right. > ... I could not more vehemently disagree. 1) DKG is publishing an idea to the community, not taking over anything. 2) I will run whatever software on my end-point using any port that I wish. End of story. Standards exist to encourage compliance, not demand it. /Hugo [snip]. > Joe > > _______________________________________________ > dns-privacy mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy -- Hugo Connery, Head of IT, DTU Environment "There is no cloud, only other people's computers". FSF _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
