Re: [IPsec] Stephen Farrell's Yes on draft-ietf-ipsecme-ddos-protection-09: (with COMMENT)

On 27/09/16 20:07, Valery Smyslov wrote: > > The attacker can however gain some benefits if he/she waits some time > until the half-open SA is expired on Responder and chooses the same SPI > and nonce for the next connection request. He/she will receive the same > puzzle > if the Responder

Re: [IPsec] Stephen Farrell's Yes on draft-ietf-ipsecme-ddos-protection-09: (with COMMENT)

On 27/09/16 20:21, Yoav Nir wrote: > Looking at the IPR statement you linked to, it does not seem relevant > to me, but IANAL. The proof-of-work scheme described in the patent > ([2]) involves setting a time limit for the client to complete the > puzzle solution. The puzzle in our draft has a

Re: [IPsec] Stephen Farrell's Yes on draft-ietf-ipsecme-ddos-protection-09: (with COMMENT)

On 27 Sep 2016, at 8:09 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > This is a nicely written document... thanks! > > - I vaguely recalled that puzzles and IPR rang a bell. Did > the WG consider [1]? If not, and if it helps, I'm fine with > making a 3rd party declaration on that

Re: [IPsec] Stephen Farrell's Yes on draft-ietf-ipsecme-ddos-protection-09: (with COMMENT)

Hi Stephen, -- COMMENT: -- This is a nicely written document... thanks! Thank you! - I vaguely recalled that puzzles and IPR rang a bell. Did the WG

[IPsec] Stephen Farrell's Yes on draft-ietf-ipsecme-ddos-protection-09: (with COMMENT)

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-ipsecme-ddos-protection-09: Yes When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer