- From: Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 13:51:47 +0200
- To: "Stephen Farrell" <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
- Cc: "Nicolas Mailhot" <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Le Lun 23 juillet 2012 13:08, Stephen Farrell a écrit : > We've done those, e.g. [1,2]. Not exactly this is a general purpose network, I'm referencing direct endnode to central data collecting node system. >> For this particular use case the latency and processing induced by >> setting >> up a crypto tunnel is a killer, > > Disagree. Attempting HTTP e2e would be a killer, as would > anything needing e2e TCP. Nothing to do with crypto. Nope, has been done for decades (used to be un-secured ftp exchanges, moved to http nowadays, ssl has been rejected by manufacturers so far). In the monitoring station use case most of the money goes into the instrument themselves and the coms stack is built using generic off-the-shelf commodity tech (in extreme flash-flood warning systems the stations are designed to be cheap enough it's ok if some of them get lost due to the flood itself) -- Nicolas Mailhot
Received on Monday, 23 July 2012 11:52:30 UTC