Hi, all, TCPINC decided not to include any protection for the TCP header.
TCP options are part of the TCP header. Sorry, but I have absolutely no idea why they would be asking now for a way to protect part of the TCP header when they've already so clearly decided otherwise. If you're not protecting things like IP addresses, ports, or - more to the point -the TCP header length field, I have no idea what it even means to claim you're protecting options. Joe On 4/26/2016 11:50 PM, Mirja Kühlewind wrote: > Hi all, > > I briefly brought this up in the last meeting and would like to start the > discussion on the mailing list now. The working group decided that tcpinc > will not encrypt the TCP header for good reasons. However, it would still be > possible to encrypt TCP options. This could help keeping confidentiality and > would avoid that a middle could alter information in a option or strip it. > Not sure if there is a case where some options should be encrypted and some > not but I guess that would be possible as well. Any thoughts? > > Mirja > _______________________________________________ > Tcpinc mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc _______________________________________________ Tcpinc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
