HI, Daniel
I think there is no difference when we considering which to do first. If
the
DHCP could offer a better way, that would be fine. However, there are
several
problems in the authentication mechanism defined in RFC3118, thus the dhc
WG
developed another mechanism called secure DHCP (
h
+1
Best Regards,
Zhiwei Yan
> 在 2015年4月14日，下午5:46，Linhui Sun 写道：
>
> HI, Daniel
>
> I think there is no difference when we considering which to do first. If the
> DHCP could offer a better way, that would be fine. However, there are several
> problems in the authentication mechanism define
We should solve two problems:
1) trust problem
2) encryption problem
No matter whether we adopt DHCP, it's better to solve them separately. I mean
that it's OK if two solutions are used for these two problems.
Best Regards,
Zhiwei Yan
> 在 2015年4月14日，下午5:46，Linhui Sun 写道：
>
> HI, Daniel
>
> I
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 05:36:10PM -0400,
Daniel Migault wrote
a message of 149 lines which said:
> Just for information, what are the technical reasons IPsec has not
> been considered at all for providing DNS privacy.
It _was_ considered during the meeting in London:
http://www.ietf.org/pro
DNS is an application that runs on a single port between two hosts. In that
environment, TLS is always a much more appropriate protection mechanism than
IPsec for the numerous reasons PaulW gave.
We don't need to document this decision any more than we need to document every
application's choic
Or… include the first sentence (with a slight editorial change) in the
document.
manning
bmann...@karoshi.com
PO Box 12317
Marina del Rey, CA 90295
310.322.8102
On 14April2015Tuesday, at 7:33, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> DNS is an application that runs on a single port between two hosts. In tha
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> DNS is an application that runs on a single port between two hosts. In that
> environment, TLS is always a much more appropriate protection mechanism than
> IPsec for the numerous reasons PaulW gave.
>
> We don't need to document this decis
At Mon, 13 Apr 2015 10:57:05 -0400,
Warren Kumari wrote:
> What do other think here -- do we want to decide on the discovery and
> binding problem first, or do we think that we should choose a document
> and start working on that (and possibly add in discovery / binding
> later)?
>
>
> I'd perso
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 2:08 PM, 神明達哉 wrote:
> At Mon, 13 Apr 2015 10:57:05 -0400,
> Warren Kumari wrote:
>
>> What do other think here -- do we want to decide on the discovery and
>> binding problem first, or do we think that we should choose a document
>> and start working on that (and possibly
Hi Stephane,
On 11/04/2015 12:42 am, "Stephane Bortzmeyer" wrote:
>On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 03:49:32AM +,
> Terry Manderson wrote
> a message of 237 lines which said:
>
>> I have performed my AD evaluation of
>> draft-ietf-dprive-problem-statement.
>
>Thanks. Most remarks have been fixed in
10 matches
Mail list logo
