On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Pradosh Mohapatra <[email protected]> wrote: >> not sure if mandating a single transport is needed at all. >> >> since the pros and cons of the various transport protocols >> (TCP, TCP-MD5, TCP-AO, IPSec, SSH) are well understood, why not simply >> enumerating the choices and leave it to the operator's local security policy >> which one to deploy ? >> >> IMO you cannot dictate local security policy as they are different between >> operators. also if the level of containment is sufficiently enough (e.g. >> local-cache only reachable through vrf, not accessible through internet >> it is perfectly reasonable even to load your cache records using vanilla >> TCP.) > > I have no problem listing various transports. I thought there was a > suggestion to > keep one of them mandatory to encourage better interoperability. That makes > some sense.
I believe, and Randy/authors can jump in here, the point of a MUST was to ensure we had one (at least) transport across all parts of the system. (interoperability, yes). How about authors/hannes/pradosh work out their best guess and we go from there? say by monday? :) -Chris _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
