Begin forwarded message:
> From: "Adam Langley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: August 20, 2008 10:43:47 AM MDT > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], > [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], > [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: "theory and practice of decentralized computer networks" <p2p- > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [p2p-hackers] IETF rejects Obfuscated TCP > > (Emailing people directly because I'm not allowed to post to the list > and the list server is down anyway) > > It seems I should pay more attention to the p2p-hackers list! Dealing > with a whole hosts of posts in one: > > * I never claimed that the IETF rejected anything, my slightly fuzzy > wording was that they "wouldn't go for it". This is, indeed, the TCPM > working group rather than the IETF as a whole which I omittied for > clarity. There wasn't a vote but it was pretty clear that several > people were against one specific point. > > * I don't believe there are any current objections about the actually > cryptography. Eric Rescorla had some comments, but then I pointed out > that his suggested scheme was isomorphic to what I was proposing > anyway. Also, TCPM wasn't commenting on the higher level aspects. > > * I don't wish any animosity towards TCPM. Several people there had a > differing opinion. It's not an unreasonable opinion given that I can't > release any information on latency effects. I might write a paper on > it, which will then be rejected by my employer's publication queue for > confidentiality reasons. At least I will have tried. I intend to > happily continue working with the TCPM WG on other things, such as > TCP-AO. > > * The point of Obfuscated TCP was, indeed, to encrypt HTTP (and > anything else) in a low cost manner. So low that it could be enabled > by default, with no administration required. > > * The specific point that several members of TCPM were unconvinced of > was a the additional of a bit from the application layer, carried in > the SYN frame. This is a violation of the usual layering and they > didn't believe I had provided sufficient justification. Almost by > definition I disagree, but it was an informed position. > > * I'm not giving up, although things get very much less clean. My > plans are too inchoate to bring up here however. Anyone is welcome to > email me to discuss it. > > > Cheers All, > > > AGL > > -- > Adam Langley [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.imperialviolet.org http://allmydata.org -- Tahoe, the Least-Authority Filesystem http://allmydata.com -- back up all your files for $5/month _______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
