Re: [Tcpcrypt] v3 of the charter

[ianG <[e-mail]>]

On 30/04/2014 22:38 pm, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On 04/30/2014 05:27 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>> On 4/30/2014 2:19 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
...
>>> (that said, i'm not sure how simultaneous open will work in whatever
>>> spec we work out; maybe it turns out we have to be willing to sacrifice
>>> simultaneous open in order to use tcp inc?)
>>
>> It should revert to conventional TCP and thus support simultaneous open
>> in that case.
> 
> I think we might be saying the same thing here -- if it turns out that
> TCP Inc can't be done with simultaneous open, then you have to sacrifice
> one feature or the other.


Yes, one or other.  My first instinct is to ask where and when is
simultaneous open used?  Opportunistic protection in TCP would be far
more important to me than something that isn't widely used, no matter
how elegant and exotic...

My second instinct would be to wonder if these discussions are arising
because the charter is still over-specified, too much detail in
isolation from some real contending protocols.  But that's possibly
because I think in terms of competition and unexpected benefits.



iang