Re: issues with the charter (fwd)

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 UTC