Re: [tcpinc] Summary of arguments from call

On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Martin Stiemerling <mls.ietf@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Am 03.08.15 um 18:51 schrieb Martin Thomson:
>
>> In the interest of factual accuracy, and because I didn't have a
>> chance to refute these arguments previously...
>>
>> On 3 August 2015 at 08:15, Mirja Kühlewind
>> <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch> wrote:
>>
>>> a) TCP-use-TLS
>>> Contra:
>>> - dependency on TLS and update cycles of other working group
>>>
>>
>> Also a Pro.  We know that TLS is going to get continued maintenance.
>>
>> - can’t not be implemented in the kernel:
>>>
>>
>> Not entirely true.  I believe that Microsoft does this.  Netflix have
>> done a partial kernel port.  Of course, I appreciate that it might be
>> considered more difficult as a result of living in the kernel, and
>> that the existing TLS code for operating systems like Linux is likely
>> a poor fit.
>>
>
> Believe is not a proof. Any evidence for this?
>

For the claim that MSFT has kernel-mode TLS?

Here's what Christian said yesterday:

"That argument rings a bit hollow for a Windows kernel developer, since we
have in fact access to S-Channel in the Windows kernel. Windows web servers
rely on the HTTP.SYS kernel driver, which implements TLS using the kernel
API for S-Channel. HTTP.SYS has been doing that for a long time, so there
is indeed some experience with that solution. "

-Ekr

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