Hi,
> > Christian Hopps wrote:
> The primary thing I'm suggesting here is that we define TFS transport mode
in
> a separate draft.
I agree that transport mode should be described in a separate draft
provided that a tunnel mode draft will allow easy adding of transport mode.
> Whether we suppor
Christian Hopps wrote:
> Whether we support generic transport or only a subset of transport
> configurations (e.g., tunnels) or both, the reasons we make whatever
> choices we make, and the mechanisms for how to implement TFS with
> whatever is chosen, is what this new draft would
On Sun, 3 May 2020, Christian Hopps wrote:
An open issue we have for IPTFS is the use of transport mode.
During the last face-to-face IETF meeting transport mode was mentioned, and
my response had been that transport mode was less secure than non-TFS tunnel
mode as the IP header was leaking u
> On May 3, 2020, at 1:08 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
>
> Christian Hopps wrote:
>> non-TFS tunnel mode as the IP header was leaking user information so it
>> hadn't been a consideration for us; however, it was later pointed out
>> (by Paul W. I believe), that transport mode is (unfortun
Christian Hopps wrote:
> non-TFS tunnel mode as the IP header was leaking user information so it
> hadn't been a consideration for us; however, it was later pointed out
> (by Paul W. I believe), that transport mode is (unfortunately?)
> commonly used with GRE tunnels in lieu of IP
