Re: Benjamin Carlyle http 2.0 expression of interest

Thanks for this.

I seen the trend where past data driven models have moved to honeypots;
because it is too costly to prove and (for them to) explain why. I know
where I can write scripts for transformation proxies (and resolve), and I
want that VM specifications written with
appropriate authentication schemes, especially compatible unto adhoc
cloud-containers and USB sticks; however, it is not work for engineers
until after the scripts are written. I like this political argument, and
there are (express) standards already in place.

On Monday, July 23, 2012, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:

> 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 17:39:51 UTC