<as individual> I disagree. The problem is that we have a whole lot of history and experience.
The experience is that if we don't insist, and make security integral to the protocol, it doesn't get implemented and we have a majority of insecure systems. If we do insist, the cost of the security is reasonable: the dire predictions that it's too costly, too hard, ... don't happen. No amount of text explaining when the security mechanism is or isn't appropriate works. You have to make the mechanism integral to the operation of the protocol, as we have done here. I don't see anything in p2psip which would be different then our history and experience. The costs aren't as bad as you fear. The probability of nearly every system being implemented insecurely is very high if you make it optional. Don't do that. Brian On 12/11/09 12:49 PM, "Michael Chen" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >>>> I¹ve raised this issue before, but I¹m 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 _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
