Whoops ... looks like I forgot to cc: the original, and hence Paul's reply, to the list - so here it is: Paul Hoffman wrote: > Ben Laurie wrote: > >I've been following the discussion about UDP and, frankly, I'm puzzled. Surely > >the type of security that this WG is talking about involves handshaking. In > >this case there must surely be some concept of sequencing, or at least > >reliable > >transport, at the transport layer to support the handshake? If this is the > >case, then there seems little point in duplicating what TCP already does for > >us. If this is not the case, then we must be talking about some kind of > >one-way > >security/authentication in which case all the necessary data must be packed > >into a single packet. Surely that's going to be one very big packet? > > Er, good point here. I was thinking on the level of "what I want this to > do", not "will this protocol even support it". It would be nice to have > secure UDP, but if it means lots of SSL-like handshakes, maybe we have to > wait for secure IP. > > -- Ben Laurie Phone: +44 (181) 994 6435 Freelance Consultant and Fax: +44 (181) 994 6472 Technical Director Email: ben@algroup.co.uk A.L. Digital Ltd, URL: http://www.algroup.co.uk London, England.Received on Thursday, 25 April 1996 09:22:48 EDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:34:48 EDT