Steve
_______________________________________________ Tcpinc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
I believe that this work has been motivated primarily by RFC 7258
(pervasive monitoring).
If folks agree, then it does not seem necessary to protect TCP header
fields, including RST.
I say this because the primary (not sole) attack of concern in the PM
context is passive wiretapping.
- Re: [tcpinc] Protect or not the TCP header Derek Fawcus
- Re: [tcpinc] Protect or not the TCP header Eric Rescorla
- Re: [tcpinc] Protect or not the TCP header marcelo bagnulo braun
- Re: [tcpinc] Protect or not the TCP header Eggert, Lars
- Re: [tcpinc] Protect or not the TCP hea... Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpinc] Protect or not the TCP... Eggert, Lars
- Re: [tcpinc] Protect or not th... Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpinc] Protect or not th... Bodo Moeller
- Re: [tcpinc] Protect or no... Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpinc] Protect or not the TCP hea... Stephen Kent
- Re: [tcpinc] Protect or not the TCP hea... Erik Nygren
- Re: [tcpinc] Protect or not the TCP... Eggert, Lars
- Re: [tcpinc] Protect or not th... Watson Ladd
- Re: [tcpinc] Protect or no... Eggert, Lars
- Re: [tcpinc] Protect or no... Yoav Nir
- Re: [tcpinc] Protect or not the TCP header Joe Touch
- Re: [tcpinc] Protect or not the TCP header Brandon Williams
- Re: [tcpinc] Protect or not the TCP header Eggert, Lars
- Re: [tcpinc] Protect or not the TCP header marcelo bagnulo braun
- Re: [tcpinc] Protect or not the TCP hea... Eggert, Lars
