I also believe that goal of tcpinc is as a response to pervasive monitoring, so a focus on payload meets that goal. As others mentioned, protecting the header or portions thereof is widening the goals to address other attack vectors beyond the goal of hampering pervasive monitoring.
Kevin From: Stephen Kent <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 1:17 PM To: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [tcpinc] Protect or not the TCP header +1 On 2014-7-29, at 8:58, marcelo bagnulo braun <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> wrote: the charter reads: - must always provide integrity protection of the payload data (it is open for discussion for the WG if the TCP header should or should not be protected). So, I dont think we can clarify this, since it is up to the WG to figure it out. So we do still need to figure it out :-) My personal take is that the main goal of tcpinc is to make the widespread eavesdropping on plaintext connections harder. So focus the focus should be on the payload, and interoperability should trump protection against other attacks. I fully understand that there are different opinions on this, and they are equally valid. But we need to figure out where the consensus of the WG on this lies. Lars _______________________________________________ Tcpinc mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
_______________________________________________ Tcpinc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
