Ted, > The bottom line is that I think the reason you have given for not making DTLS > MTI is a really bad one. There is a perfectly good DTLS implementation out > there, which is quite easy to use as far as I can tell,
So I am puzzled. If that is the case, it is not the HNCP implementer who has to write any DTLS code (in my book, the word "implement" in a protocol spec means "write code"). At most there would need to be a few extra instructions to wrap a socket in DTLS, and that code would likely be ifdeffed because it would only be used when needed. Which sounds exactly like a SHOULD to me. Or maybe "mandatory to be able to switch on." In any case, not part of the HNCP protocol itself. Regards Brian _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
