Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply)

Phil Karn <karn@laptop.ka9q.ampr.org> Mon, 03 March 1997 13:08 UTC

Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa01434; 3 Mar 97 8:08 EST
Received: from portal.ex.tis.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06486; 3 Mar 97 8:08 EST
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by portal.ex.tis.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) id HAA00929 for ipsec-outgoing; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 07:54:50 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199703031254.HAA00929@portal.ex.tis.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 1997 23:40:48 -0800 (PST)
From: Phil Karn <karn@laptop.ka9q.ampr.org>
To: kent@bbn.com
CC: perry@piermont.com, rmonsour@earthlink.net, ipsec@tis.com
Subject: Re: TO COMPRESS OR NOT TO CMPRS (please reply)
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com
Precedence: bulk

Steve,

I used the term "transport layer security" to refer to SSL and SSH
because that's the term in common IETF usage. Perhaps we should rename
them to "presentation layer security", because that's what it really
is. And the Internet may even have a true presentation layer for the
first time. :-)

Your other point about being able to sabotage TCP connections when the
security is layered on top is also quite true. It all depends on your threat
model -- are you more worried about active attacks or passive eavesdropping?

Phil