Hi Watson.

The charter calls for the group to “develop the TCP extensions to provide 
unauthenticated encryption and integrity protection of TCP streams” and “define 
an unauthenticated key exchange mechanism." This pretty much calls for design 
by committee.

As for shortcomings of tcpcrypt, there are two varieties to these shortcomings:

Security shortcomings - here I wholeheartedly agree that security mechanisms 
are best developed by one or a few of the right people, with everybody else 
just examining and looking for issues. That’s why in CFRG we’re not designing 
curves be committee, but arguing the pros and cons of several proposed curves. 
Similarly here, all proposals have their own key exchange and crypto 
mechanisms, and the discussions of the group are not designing them, merely 
comparing them.

Deployability shortcomings - this is where claims are made in the vein of “your 
proposal works well in the lab, but it won’t work in this or that scenario in 
the real world.”, or “when blocked, your proposal does not fall back gracefully 
to unencrypted”. Unfortunately the Internet is full of boxes that don’t behave 
the way we expect them, and you do need a committee to consider all of the ways 
a connection might be broken because of deploying the proposed mechanism. The 
obvious ones are NAT devices and firewalls, but mandatory proxies are not far 
behind in the amount of trouble they cause. You can see a lot of that in 
httpbis, and some of that in TLS’s 1.3 discussion. It’s not very pretty, but it 
turns out to be necessary to get something widely deployed.

Yoav

On Aug 2, 2014, at 9:46 PM, Watson Ladd <[email protected]> wrote:

> Dear all,
> 
> We seem to have a charter.
> We seem to have a working implementation: tcpcrypt.
> Why don't we attempt to determine which shortcomings need to be
> addressed and how to fix them with tcpcrypt, instead of design by
> committee?
> 
> Sincerely,
> Watson Ladd

_______________________________________________
Tcpinc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc

Reply via email to