On 8/13/15, 5:27 PM, "Tcpinc on behalf of Daniel Kahn Gillmor"
<[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu 2015-08-13 17:05:38 -0400, Kyle Rose wrote:
>> This can't be the case if, for instance, the session IDs are signed in
>> batches as proposed in the tcpcrypt paper.
>
>You seem to be assuming that peer authentication will happen by an
>cryptographic public-key signature over the session id. In this case, i
>agree that the session id could be published without a problem.
>
>But this isn't necessarily the only mechanism that could be used to
>authenticate the peer.
I was looking forward to sending something like an HMAC of the signature
value, myself.
Craig
_______________________________________________
Tcpinc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
