I too agree with the three of you. D/TLS should be optional. Several of my previous post voice concerns about redundancy and efficiency of the transport layer.
--Michael
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Concerns, questions and nits about base -06 as
part of the WGLC
From: jc <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, December 11, 2009 7:26 am
To: Ari Keranen <[email protected]>
Cc: P2PSIP WG <[email protected]>
I said this about 7 months ago and I still agree that there should be
no mandatory transport layer encryption as this should be provided
outside of the scope of this draft.
Julian
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 11, 2009, at 5:39 AM, Ari Keranen <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> David A. Bryan wrote:
>> Concern 1: Mandatory TLS/DTLS Inappropriate in some Contexts
>> I’ve raised this issue before, but I’m hoping that now that
>> people have had a bit more time to think about all the use cases,
>> see what it means in the real world, etc., there might be a bit mo
>> re support for modifying the requirement for TLS/DTLS. TLS/DTLS ma
>> kes sense in some cases, but if we are expecting RELOAD to be reus
>> able, it is clear to me that it does not make sense in all cases.
>> It was familiar
>> to the editors, and well understood, so it made sense as a proposal,
>> but I disagree with it being the mandatory/only solution.
>
> I fully agree with David that making (D)TLS mandatory is not a good
> idea, especially concerning re-usability of the protocol in scenarios
> where you already have similar security features provided by the
> underlying system.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Ari
> _______________________________________________
> P2PSIP mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
_______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
