On 8/1/2014 9:18 PM, Everhart, Craig wrote:
You guys. TCP is way more than http/s.
It is, but TLS has been applied to HTTP and POP/IMAP widely; it can
easily be applied to other uses of TCP as well.
That's a much lower hurdle than coming up with new TCP-level protocols.
Joe
----- Reply message -----
From: "Nico Williams" <[email protected]>
To: "Tony Arcieri" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Kevin Glavin" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>, "Eggert, Lars" <[email protected]>, "Joe Touch"
<[email protected]>
Subject: [tcpinc] why not just TLS on secure port numbers?
Date: Fri, Aug 1, 2014 11:25 PM
On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 06:57:10PM -0700, Tony Arcieri wrote:
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 5:14 PM, Joe Touch <[email protected]> wrote:
> I might have thought so. Except Google did it.
>
Google is a cool story, but in my book it really doesn't count until
everyone does it and we have full network encryption...
Right. Big players can impose HTTPS due to the cost to a nation's
citizens (or ISP's customers) of blocking it.
To really extend this to everyone else might take confidentiality
protection for DNS queries and maybe even not having PTR RRsets.
Nico
--
_______________________________________________
Tcpinc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
_______________________________________________
Tcpinc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
