Hi John, On Fri, 1 Apr 2011, John Scudder wrote:
> > i propose that i rev the doc to say > > o the transport must provide authentication and integrity > > o the current ssh description is an example > > o other transport meeting the authentication and integrity constraints > > are welcome > > > > of course, this will leave open the mandatory-to-implement LCD issue. > > sigh. > > I think we shouldn't punt on a mandatory transport. I suggest TCP-MD5 > for practical reasons, including the open source support issue Chris > raised. > I'm confused: Do you suggest TCP-MD5 as optional or mandatory? Defining TCP-MD5 as mandatory seems a bit risky as it is obsoleted by AO. I'm not sure how the IESG would react on this. On the other hand, if there are no real implementations for RFC5925 it seems useless for RTR, as well. Thus, I would stick to SSH (or something else that is well-deployed and not obsoleted). Cheers matthias -- Matthias Waehlisch . Freie Universitaet Berlin, Inst. fuer Informatik, AG CST . Takustr. 9, D-14195 Berlin, Germany .. mailto:[email protected] .. http://www.inf.fu-berlin.de/~waehl :. Also: http://inet.cpt.haw-hamburg.de .. http://www.link-lab.net _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
