Hi Stephen,

just to double-check if I understand correctly what you are saying:

You basically say that you would not support the tcp-eno approach because you 
would like to have for any tcpinc protocol (not matter if tcp-use-tls or 
tcpcrypt) only a very simple negotiation in a TCP option where both ends 
confirm that they support tcpinc and then all additional negotiation is done in 
the payload data space (and therefore an own document is not needed)?

What’s about the argument, that I believe you’ve stated earlier yourself, that 
one could use tcp-eno to update to a new protocol version (not only a new 
cipher) in case we detect flaws in the general protocol design…? If you think 
this is useful to have, would it then make then to have an own document for it 
(and potentially take the tcp-eno proposal as a starting point)?

Mirja



On 25.08.2015 22:03, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> 
> On 25/08/15 17:54, David Mazieres wrote:
>> TCP-ENO is an
>> effort A) to make progress on common elements of TCP-use-TLS and
>> tcpcrypt,
> 
> The above is reasonable.
> 
> ...
>> Well, in order to make the choice between tcpcrypt and TCP-use-TLS the
>> most salient, it seems worth maximizing the advantages of the two
>> protocols.
> 
> I think your goal (A) and "maximising the advantages" of tcpcrypt
> (or of TLS) are incompatible goals at this point in time.
> 
> If/when the WG adopt tcpcrypt optimisations relating to algorithm
> agility will inevitably be explored. If/when the WG adopt TLS that
> kind of change wouldn't make sense.
> 
> In the meantime trying to squeeze discussion of loads of different
> things into discussion about TCP-ENO seems mostly a distraction.
> 
> S.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tcpinc mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
> 

-- 
------------------------------------------
Dipl.-Ing. Mirja Kühlewind
Communication Systems Group
Institute TIK, ETH Zürich
Gloriastrasse 35, 8092 Zürich, Switzerland

Room ETZ G93
phone: +41 44 63 26932
email: [email protected]
------------------------------------------

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

Reply via email to