IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpinc] Review of draft-bittau-tcpinc-tcpeno-01

Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com> Mon, 24 August 2015 20:37 UTC

Return-Path: <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tcpinc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpinc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 088A21A1B45 for <tcpinc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 13:37:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 gnk8Rut230xU for <tcpinc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 13:37:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22c.google.com (mail-wi0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22c]) (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 596021A0469 for <tcpinc@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 13:37:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by widdq5 with SMTP id dq5so61324863wid.1 for <tcpinc@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 13:37:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=edL2YgPFv+Jv5+Nquiu9AoTT1sUzYXNs9aIowJnH8Ro=; b=a9nuqM3vLx82A3L1dtvWJtCS5gK9PqmkJb9uvJ6nEoT+KLcdwdm0Ve2Ucema7QmD0D 1yTcrxENzcwJpqqJJEU3EAoZyNWN9hCcbEXBG/1NIhBBuIc1cC98K6GLu49q7h295jzm F1jQ4qlWY5K2x5fEVBwnzxRaOkMdoZRcKEyWTNiN0e0inz0cktFkOXDMFlc01P7qSXIt uVdLyHORW52zLpvptudom7clNd/LcM9Juu3ol3o/vou+aZA7qn4wuaQOiM6jL+SzSOeN bda53v00HhKftBUijwae0ZKP5yO9TBZ1X18JBbgcLE8Wosqca47KrMIB+Ydutw+Sb0SQ /QaA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.80.200 with SMTP id t8mr32344614wix.18.1440448642169; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 13:37:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.28.132.11 with HTTP; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 13:37:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <55DB79BC.8040309@bbn.com>
References: <CABcZeBNEFVkDi38y3G-C2nQF=dzW2mGDsj5DVK_OKVkPwK=G0g@mail.gmail.com> <878u92oadf.fsf@ta.scs.stanford.edu> <CACsn0ckQskjLqo0=YfJrmBEsyCaq0jpcSzGUwKhRo0BzzQ=wDA@mail.gmail.com> <871teuo7nu.fsf@ta.scs.stanford.edu> <CACsn0ckn-QdoXmTgjW8gYQyVqZ0x9JHEYvZO5VHQkG9nKA3-Ew@mail.gmail.com> <87wpwmnenv.fsf@ta.scs.stanford.edu> <CACsn0cnq9cZdkn=yp8-GJfXDGMP8r1sib3qrQQEQYhF25kYZPg@mail.gmail.com> <87twrpokpz.fsf@ta.scs.stanford.edu> <CACsn0ck2PfKQ8pkDLiSmuLH+81s2GzsBnKYH7e=5ga5nSJvo1Q@mail.gmail.com> <87io85ofkl.fsf@ta.scs.stanford.edu> <CACsn0cmna07KzCZme7pxRgCcAOJLXzup3KPJ+bRimL=n3mpPXg@mail.gmail.com> <87vbc5l8si.fsf@ta.scs.stanford.edu> <CACsn0c=cLj2F6JyFX848D1TuDt0A=kT7UMm8ZPRRu-X6ow4oTQ@mail.gmail.com> <55DB79BC.8040309@bbn.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 13:37:22 -0700
Message-ID: <CACsn0ckLiC-RCjFNjLx01kCV2pEW58_NqJyt2bfXoAgZL994cw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
To: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpinc/G6UC7OOBPw-S4uieJ175xSxKOUE>
Cc: tcpinc <tcpinc@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [tcpinc] Review of draft-bittau-tcpinc-tcpeno-01
X-BeenThere: tcpinc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 20:37:25 -0000

On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com> wrote:
> Watson,
>
> based on many years of experience dealin wit this sort of issue
> I suggest that the relative merits (strength, etc.) of cipher suites
> form a lattice, not a total order.

Every lattice has a compatible total order, and preferences are
expressed as total orders. Could you explain how your supposed insight
into the reality of comparing ciphersuites justifies exposing all
possible ciphersuites, and permitting specifying arbitrary preferences
among them?

>
> Steve
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tcpinc mailing list
> Tcpinc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc



-- 
"Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains".
--Rousseau.

v2.14.0 | Report a Bug | By Email