[tcpinc] Why retain negotatiation
Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com> Sat, 16 July 2016 15:58 UTC
Return-Path: <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tcpinc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpinc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67DCB12D111 for <tcpinc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Jul 2016 08:58:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fW9GvnReqSfh for <tcpinc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Jul 2016 08:58:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x22a.google.com (mail-vk0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 65ECC12B036 for <tcpinc@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Jul 2016 08:58:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id o63so192346934vkg.1 for <tcpinc@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Jul 2016 08:58:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=cVTr1TS2M/rWfBMBYPDgWThceZsaNtDihIg7zWtSTTY=; b=HKtLggi/c7OPWnZJka7BxAjrSFghvKMjLYX0/QV32wl9vJXIJoP3yGvWR8+84OaEZ+ zVBJQiUdAZzWrn6cEE1TfaG0gCfhg/ZcAYQq3P3mC7U9le/XE9D8JoYMnfOBwKdztF/J t1VxOBGzd4xD3TLJkFxlsF9clExAIG9gjroXzirSvMbMnfKq60zRnETXdTTjkpfEHvln UmkfX/Wla3FhzWh9BxnuYkRj5FodquVzxkUl8DxghdMPOsuWhgs7qTIVgoj5hC/sQqZ4 zNKH04lBLAsWCI1dirlwylApWTalWxbQ/HWf5fzcK7JFZ07rNLW1udnbpDCIW1SW7rYT oDSA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=cVTr1TS2M/rWfBMBYPDgWThceZsaNtDihIg7zWtSTTY=; b=WnbBgRs62QN58pleeYnB2Negu72RJyEJmyzMh/JK+ui4VC4WOcBgT1E8JHh+FUhMDy Pqu4ilYpqmBBijU27UOp4QrirIxQsnccq0GqslKTIDKnPFLlrnMU5+0NA+g61H+hWnSc vHFjBawj4qvMAgITBkQ8mh0BzPTQrVJtu3Vuyo5Z4YQoNwQxgSkpWfAjcQsnnqrKkV81 MeI8zgTlm1DWO3O/sgGSi/XkwAnFLu5N4pl5dcDOxh0mGn//beH1vyLgLDpAVBk7VTvg jIgN85Gz3HF7cOrsUnjuYmXA7crlW/Sf0pRLpn/PCgnhYDGwqlp2zE+blmB0Z2BPa9iG 0DIw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tIDgghIC3Zz1gbuLZo/8E6C+m904DtWOR1pUIEJD7lzwtM9fQg4WsHYPxN29Rx/IWftBAr9xdGrPdCaJg==
X-Received: by 10.176.4.101 with SMTP id 92mr11577803uav.56.1468684697161; Sat, 16 Jul 2016 08:58:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.159.39.194 with HTTP; Sat, 16 Jul 2016 08:58:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2016 08:58:16 -0700
Message-ID: <CACsn0cmuXwOX_5NLOJRX07_cu2xcGiEYjy44cQHZhh3wrb1xTA@mail.gmail.com>
To: tcpinc <tcpinc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpinc/93EtQ9SL5P0NyhPxRgv_XyUHS1c>
Subject: [tcpinc] Why retain negotatiation
X-BeenThere: tcpinc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for adding encryption to TCP." <tcpinc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcpinc>, <mailto:tcpinc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tcpinc/>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpinc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpinc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc>, <mailto:tcpinc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2016 15:58:20 -0000
Dear all, Originally negotiation was proposed because EKR wanted to use TLS. That has now ended, but we are retaining the negotiation layer with far more generality then required. I'm not sure why that is. Sincerely, Watson
- Re: [tcpinc] Why retain negotatiation David Mazieres
- Re: [tcpinc] Why retain negotatiation Kyle Rose
- Re: [tcpinc] Why retain negotatiation Yoav Nir
- [tcpinc] Why retain negotatiation Watson Ladd