On 13 October 2014 11:22, Christian Huitema <[email protected]> wrote: >> I.e., any option-based solution might not work through a middlebox - >> including the one that signals the use of TCPINC. At that point, we're >> back to running TLS, and it seems pointless to discuss this as a TCP >> variant, IMO. > > I agree with Joe. Can we list the attacks that would not be prevented by > TLS, but that would be prevented by a version of TCPINC that does not > protect the TCP header?
I thought that seamless (i.e., opportunistic) negotiation of the ability to run TLS was valuable, if nothing else. _______________________________________________ Tcpinc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
