IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpinc] Revised version of TCP-ENO

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Fri, 14 August 2015 19:23 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@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 465DC1A6F2A for <tcpinc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 12:23:39 -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 VQTqroCFGEYc for <tcpinc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 12:23:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yk0-x229.google.com (mail-yk0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::229]) (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 1766F1A6F22 for <tcpinc@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 12:23:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ykfw73 with SMTP id w73so23892198ykf.3 for <tcpinc@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 12:23:37 -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=pUBs1U7DeTtNxXXXANj2iFRgPh8g2xIIzr9+s0YKrmU=; b=ERdfN2+ImlLOFq2sHZlrgrK11uA41VbSezF2wTc+zCWCwQjwVaud6yc/Wj4KBeL/cR vx466p7AVxCmGVBfslkmcSTWrABAaARM+8Kd3XxgI8kRFeRiqR9H3khIbMJhKxC3f9ty 8A9/z2BZTjTH+6hmSn4SschN0Yq7eYs2XHQWypZrxddvU98y1b3pqkBk2nxz6HH4gd5l IvIeINzzkVmDVM3L5IAVqLHp5Cu3j1S2mq1LRDOgQ5KjHjcKMFxsj2Gmwm18YTW1mQKl mCvY8zRAza2p2tJI/+nxiLrc7q/TYFXkw0nVq81u4U7vHirwaYx0Kx0eleD3i2JBNw2Q epaw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.170.72.86 with SMTP id o83mr46330970yko.98.1439580217511; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 12:23:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.129.22.211 with HTTP; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 12:23:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <87d1ypsoxk.fsf@ta.scs.stanford.edu>
References: <87pp2vqplu.fsf@ta.scs.stanford.edu> <CAJU8_nXAHhf6dqqs0gUEGz49bG7YUO1qaGwaLm04+vstPTyfWg@mail.gmail.com> <87h9o4rqwz.fsf@ta.scs.stanford.edu> <874mk2kj56.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> <CAJU8_nVcDmCw-0KYviJ5GWZL+-YcCg3wLMJqpkuh=iN8RppA+A@mail.gmail.com> <87y4hej2vf.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> <87egj67sac.fsf@ta.scs.stanford.edu> <87bnea7rr6.fsf@ta.scs.stanford.edu> <CABkgnnUF-byT2MH8mrmZJaMY2PTsspWJ8W3wJmddXdgMqGHCkQ@mail.gmail.com> <87614i7o2l.fsf@ta.scs.stanford.edu> <CABkgnnU8eeX3QV+D_g2XJqWGf9YzUZ1v-eqjg9HsioGJP8-GqQ@mail.gmail.com> <87io8hwznh.fsf@ta.scs.stanford.edu> <CABkgnnXDomgQJSiCTdxETomPB7H+n2DggZ4VX0Q8hpqvoyq=8A@mail.gmail.com> <874mk1wxs5.fsf@ta.scs.stanford.edu> <CABkgnnXo67ZM9Qa0-rHdNty1ewaGnn8G30Fn2WQZh6fh9-0KvA@mail.gmail.com> <87d1ypsoxk.fsf@ta.scs.stanford.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 12:23:37 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnXu0BpdTxi138BU_GRSGGq+nKgLg2M0nFwJY+fFevayvg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: David Mazieres <dm-list-tcpcrypt@scs.stanford.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpinc/zezNpJME-MNsgAyDph3Df2mtKp8>
Cc: tcpinc <tcpinc@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [tcpinc] Revised version of TCP-ENO
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: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 19:23:39 -0000

On 14 August 2015 at 11:30,  <dm-list-tcpcrypt@scs.stanford.edu> wrote:
> Do you think TCP-ENO should specify the
> mechanism or the requirement?

Perhaps neither.  At one level, this need only negotiate what crypto
is in effect.

At this stage, not knowing what is going to happen where, bundling
things together doesn't help.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email