Wednesday, Nov 18, 2015 12:23 PM Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> 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.
That's why I said MTI, not MTU! But MTI means not #ifdef. -- Sent from Whiteout Mail - https://whiteout.io My PGP key: https://keys.whiteout.io/mel...@fugue.com
pgp1m0Tk51mCt.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
