> On Tue, 2003-02-25 at 22:09, Hesham Soliman (EAB) wrote: > > => But is this the only problem? I mean even if there is > > a way of making apps using UDP react correctly to address > > changes, is it not possible that some apps would want to > > make sure that they are still talking to the _same_peer_ > > and not just the same application on another host? > > I expect so. That's what I meant when I was talking about > authenticating > the binding. Other applications might not care and might > prefer a quick, > if insecure, redirect instead.
=> Right, but I guess the latter type of application would not be harmed by the "extra" security. > > > => There was a reference made that the draft deals with > > stateful applications. > > Indeed. How does one recognize a stateful application on > L3? [Unless we > require the application to indicate this explicitly.] => We don't need to recognise them, see my comment above. Hesham -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
