Re: [Spud] Extensibility considered harmful? was Re: [Privsec-program] Detecting and Defeating TCP/IP Hypercookie Attacks

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 6:01 PM, Stephen Farrell <

>
> IMO that case has not been made to the point where I would
> consider it justifies privacy downsides. IOW, while I am of
> course in favour of endpoints being able to signal to one
> another without middlebox interference, I am not at all on
> side with transport header integrity being counted as a major
> win in the analysis of PLUS, if that "win" inherently requires
> a significant privacy cost. (And I am clearly happy to endlessly
> repeat myself that in this particular case:
>
>         extensibility == privacy unfriendly
>
>
Stephen, someone naively coming across this statement in the record will
think you mean that any extensibility is privacy unfriendly.  Obviously,
you have championed the ability to shift cryptographic algorithms as needs
change, which requires extensibility of specific forms.   Lots of other
work requires extensibility to be useful at all (imagine if the tag space
of the web had been frozen in 1993).

I should greatly appreciate you reformulating this into something that
actually matches your meaning.  That would likely be useful; this is not.

thanks,

Ted