On Wed, 13 May 2015 12:36:17 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes:
>
>> On Tue 2015-05-12 14:40:12 -0400, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>>> What I'm basically wondering, and advocating, is if perhaps one method
>>> would be sufficient. This would reduce complexity on the protocol a
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Doug Royer wrote:
>
> Firewall issue:
>
> We can't live in fear that only a handful of ports are forever usable
> because of busted firewalls or busted firewall administrators.
>
> I think the decision should be based on what's best for DNS.
>
> I hope that older
Firewall issue:
We can't live in fear that only a handful of ports are forever usable
because of busted firewalls or busted firewall administrators.
I think the decision should be based on what's best for DNS.
I hope that older DNS servers do no crash when getting a new type of packet
informatio
On May 13, 2015, at 3:52 AM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Paul Hoffman writes:
>
>>> Having two parallel mechanisms for a latency-sensitive protocol leads to
>>> the necessity of doing a "happy eyeballs" approach in implementation to
>>> decrease latency.
>>
>> That's only true of the specification
On May 13, 2015, at 2:28 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
> My understanding is that the smtps port was allocated, then in a fit of
> panic the IETF decided that allocating N*M ports (N protocols, M security
> layers) would be a disaster and cause horrible security layer negotiation
> problems, so smtps was
Paul Hoffman writes:
>> Having two parallel mechanisms for a latency-sensitive protocol leads to
>> the necessity of doing a "happy eyeballs" approach in implementation to
>> decrease latency.
>
> That's only true of the specifications don't say what to do
> first. However, draft-ietf-dprive-star
Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes:
> On Tue 2015-05-12 14:40:12 -0400, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> What I'm basically wondering, and advocating, is if perhaps one method
>> would be sufficient. This would reduce complexity on the protocol and
>> implementation level.
>
> I agree that a single mechanism w
Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On May 12, 2015, at 11:40 AM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>
> > For SMTP, IMAP, POP etc the reason for having both port-based and
> > upgrade-based is legacy and historic reasons: back in the days the
> > STARTTLS approach wasn't invented, so following HTTP(S) footsteps, new
> >
