On Thu, 6 Nov 2014, Dan Harkins wrote:
I support the work item looking at defending against DDoS, and have no
objection to the opportunistic work item (after omitting the wording on
channel binding).
+1
How about we also get rid of the mention of a formal security proof
of opportunistic encryption? The security is just that afforded by D-H.
Maybe replace it with wording to ensure opportunistic <word> will not
reduce the security of the non-opportunstic parts that might be added.
I think that was the mean concern.
Paul
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
