Subject: [tcpinc] Implementations

From: Watson Ladd <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2014 19:31:34 -0800

Dear all,

One of the selling points of the TLS option was how easy it would be
to implement: after all, we've already got TLS implementations and a
few kernel-level changes to permit userspace to set the option is all
that is required for an implementation. Yet I don't see an
implementation, which would make Nico's and Joe's contentions about
how to implement much clearer, along with other things.

Without working implementations, ideally deployed across a wide number
of networks, we can't actually determine all the terrible things that
can go wrong, and what the impact is. So far only tcpcrypt has this
data. I don't know that much about networking, so I'm sure there are
disadvantages of tcpcrypt that I'm not spotting, but I'm virtually
certain that we're better off testing middleboxes for compatibility
then talking about what they will and won't do, and having that
information inform an eventual decision about what to deploy.

Sincerely,
Watson Ladd

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 20:21:06 -0800

Well, we haven't even figured out what the requirements are, so it's
fairly clear to me that implementations are premature at best.

There is a published test of middlebox transit issues that should inform
our progress, rather than anecdotal evidence of a limited deployment test.

Joe

On 12/3/2014 7:31 PM, Watson Ladd wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Tcpinc mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
>