On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 05:54:12AM -0600, zooko wrote: > http://obstcp.blogspot.com > > Bah! > > I say people should implement and use it anyway, despite IETF's > decision not to standardize it. >
The subject line is misleading. The IETF did not reject Obfuscated TCP, though it is true that many individuals in the TCPM working group raised issues with parts of its current design. There are alternative designs that would probably be less controversial. The draft Adam submitted to the TCPM working group was on only one part of Obfuscated TCP that allows data to be carried on the SYN-ACK packet. There was a lively email discussion on some of the issues with this concerning both TCP and application programming, on the expected utility of it for typical applications, and from a security standpoint. In addition to the questions on design for carrying data on the SYN-ACK, there were serious security issues raised with the Obfuscated TCP design and its lack of crypto-agility. The working group never took any consensus call or made a formal decision to either reject or adopt either the sadata draft that Adam submitted or Obfuscated TCP which is built upon it, but it looked like there would be resistance to both from at least the set of individuals that commented in the last couple of weeks. I am a co-chair of the TCPM working group. _______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
