> On Aug 1, 2014, at 12:06 PM, ianG <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 1/08/2014 18:37 pm, Joe Touch wrote: >> ... >> If "THIS" == anti-monitoring. >> >> If "THIS" >= anti-monitoring, there's work to be done, but why hold up >> an existing solution that's easy to deploy? > > > I'd agree. If there's an existing solution to getting TCP protected, > I'd say go for it. Now. Why waste time on discussing it? > > It's much easier to roll that out a small v0 quickly and then start > preparing for a larger v1 based on experience, needs that were deferred, > and needs discovered as time goes on. > > (as an aside, by "existing solution" do you mean tcpcrypt?)
TLS as an app layer solution. We already use it for https and pop/imap. Joe > > > elsewhere: >> If the IETF wants to provide a service to the community, >> generate and maintain those certs for free. > > > Ug. If IETF starts a war with the CAs, it'll not even make it to the > NSA battlefield.... > > > > iang > > _______________________________________________ > Tcpinc mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc _______________________________________________ Tcpinc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
