On 30/03/2015 18:25 pm, Tim Shepard wrote:
we no longer MAC the header. You can download the code from our TLV branch
at:
It seems to me you have a choice of what sort of TLV encoding to use
at this point. Is there any good reason not do use the same sort of
TLV scheme that TLS uses today, so that at least as far as the TLV
framing protocol the two proposals would be the same?
Yes, I know it is probably more complicated than you would like, but
it is an already well known, already existing way of framing, and
adopting it to move incrementally closer to compatibility would
probably be worth it at this point.
Surely the better direction would be to move towards what TCP does? We
are fundamentally talking about TCP, so its methods and manners should
dominate, no?
Most discussions I have seen about the low level framing of TLS &
friends indicate it is wildly complicated and overdone, and something to
distance from in new designs, not emulate.
(Although to be fair, I'm not really sure what this entails beyond the
catch-all phrases of TLV & TCP. And, I'm not even sure I agree with
imposing TLV over all of tcpinc. It opens the door to "flexibility" aka
complexity, whereas tightness and purpose is better in my mind.)
iang
_______________________________________________
Tcpinc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
