Re: [Spud] PCP vs. SPUD

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Aaron,

I view this stuff differently.  It's not whether an extra protocol can
do the job, but whether there can be another implicit contract built, at
least in the case of directionality.  That could be a tradeoff between
signaling delay and packet overhead, but we don't yet really know what
that packet overhead looks like.  If this is all DTLS then maybe apps
want to eat that anyway.

Eliot


On 3/25/15 4:38 PM, Aaron Falk wrote:
> If we take SPUD's goals at their most minimal, as expressed by Ted, of
> enabling passage of encrypted traffic through middleboxes, can someone
> explain why PCP is not sufficient?  
>
> --aaron
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spud mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spud