Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 18, 2015, at 12:23 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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. Hmm, I'm reading it the same way as Ted. Right now, you have a SHOULD use and while I'm okay with that, a MUST implement enables the option for the SHOULD use, but that they are separate. If there is a strong enough argument against MTI, I'll be okay with that. I haven't seen it yet. The SHOULD use can stay to meet some of the arguments stated, but can a MUST implement be added? Thanks, Kathleen > > Regards > Brian > _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
