On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:42 PM, Peter Gutmann <[email protected]> wrote: > David McGrew <[email protected]> writes: > >>I have a hard time understanding what the goals of the I-D are relative to >>the TCP standard. The draft says "Standards Track"; would Experimental be >>more appropriate? > > +1. I've got it set aside for next week when I may have a bit more time to > look at it, but my first reaction was "why?". I understand it's always fun to > dream up a new crypto protocol (Ferguson and Schneier wrote a whole book on > it), but... why? It definitely seems like an Experimental to me, not > Standards-track.
Most likely because someone's thinking of putting this on silicon. Sure, there's IPsec, but then you'd need to implement RFC5660 if you want similar semantics, and no one has yet. Nico --
