Re: [multipathtcp] new tcpcrypt draft available

FYI that trick was discussed for multipath tcp.  See their archives goe the reasons this isn't a good approach. 

Joe

> On Feb 17, 2014, at 4:06 AM, "Scharf, Michael (Michael)" <michael.scharf@alcatel-lucent.com> wrote:
> 
> FYI - this could matter to tcpm as well
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: multipathtcp [mailto:multipathtcp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>> Christoph Paasch
>> Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 12:56 PM
>> To: Andrea Bittau
>> Cc: multipathtcp@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] new tcpcrypt draft available
>> 
>> Hello Andrea,
>> 
>>> On 16/02/14 - 14:54:18, Andrea Bittau wrote:
>>> For those interested, we posted a revised version of the tcpcrypt
>>> draft (opportunistic TCP encryption):
>>> 
>>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-bittau-tcp-crypt-04.txt
>>> 
>>> This will be discussed on Monday morning in tcpm, at the end of
>>> Session 1 (09:00--11:30).
>>> 
>>> All comments are welcome, including any points that you'd like us to
>>> address in our presentation.
>> 
>> I think it would be important to consider moving the MAC from the TCP
>> options space to the payload (similar to an SSL-record) to allow
>> support
>> for TSO and segment splitting middleboxes and to avoid using up all the
>> TCP
>> option space.
>> 
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Christoph
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> multipathtcp mailing list
>> multipathtcp@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp
> 
> _______________________________________________
> multipathtcp mailing list
> multipathtcp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp