Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 09:44:01AM -0700, Stephen Farrell: > And introducing new protocols without improving that > goes against very long held IETF consensus that protocols > need to have some actually usable strong security mechanism > defined. It seems the wg here get that but are choosing to > do nothing about it - I mean in their day-jobs, not that > writing RFC text is "doing something." The responses to the > secdir review seem to make it clear that the claim that > IPsec can be used is mythical, so this discuss to ask that > the security considerations properly document the utter > absence of any modern way to secure this protocol and not > pretend that there are ways that can be used to secure this > in the real world.
I'd be happy to see the addition of TLS support in a future document. I also do not want TLS use to be required and I would like to see this draft move forward without TLS. _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
