On Aug 3, 2014, at 3:27 AM, Watson Ladd <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> 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?
>>
>> The WG now has four proposals to deal with. In a way that's a good
>> thing as it indicates a level of interest from serious proponents
>> of each of the solutions. It clearly does make the WG's task more
>> complicated though. Fairness requires a bit of due diligence before
>> down-selecting to one starting point for the WG. ISTM that the
>> chairs are doing that and without delay.
>
> What are the four proposals? What are their merits?
>
> As I see it the following have been discussed:
> -BTNS IPsec
> -tcpcrypt
> -using TLS in an unauthenticated mode with TCP signalling the initiation.
The four proposals are:
tcpcrypt
unauthenticated TLS
draft-thomson-tcpinc-dtls
TCP-AO
There is not proposal to “just do IPsec” BTNS or otherwise.
Yoav
_______________________________________________
Tcpinc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
