IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com> Tue, 25 August 2015 14:06 UTC

Return-Path: <kent@bbn.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 A95B11B32A8 for <tcpinc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 07:06:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 UBVEisL4Vwhe for <tcpinc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 07:06:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.bbn.com (smtp.bbn.com [128.33.0.80]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 343FB1B329F for <tcpinc@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 07:06:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ssh.bbn.com ([192.1.122.15]:48961 helo=COMSEC.home) by smtp.bbn.com with esmtp (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <kent@bbn.com>) id 1ZUErX-000Ln5-V2 for tcpinc@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 10:06:08 -0400
To: tcpinc@ietf.org
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> <CACsn0ckLiC-RCjFNjLx01kCV2pEW58_NqJyt2bfXoAgZL994cw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
Message-ID: <55DC764F.4000104@bbn.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 10:06:07 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CACsn0ckLiC-RCjFNjLx01kCV2pEW58_NqJyt2bfXoAgZL994cw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000202040109080603000800"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpinc/aMPVIsXmYWGNcDnMbD5U5PlA_XY>
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: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 14:06:10 -0000

Watson,

On 8/24/15 4:37 PM, Watson Ladd wrote:
> 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
more properly, a total order can be _imposed_ on a lattice.

> , and preferences are
> expressed as total orders.
The issue here is that reasonable people can disagree about
the total order imposed on the lattice.
> Could you explain how your supposed insight
"supposed insight" seems rather pejorative; better watch out for the
IETF mail list PC police
> into the reality of comparing ciphersuites justifies exposing all
> possible ciphersuites, and permitting specifying arbitrary preferences
> among them?
The preferences of others are "arbitrary" but yours are not?

Steve

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email