Mukund Sivaraman <[email protected]> wrote: > It's a clever construction and impressive. :) But I shudder at the added > complexity of implementing this compared to the relative simplicity of > Bas Westerbaan's draft.
Having finished reading, I agree. I think that Appendix C is kinda incorrect: I think that verifiers likely would do the steps in the opposite direction, causing cache misses if the previous steps haven't already been done yet. I think that this avoids doing so much work when the response data has been corrupted by an on-path attacker. -- Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide ** My working hours and your working hours may be different. ** ** Please do not feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours **
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
