Hi,
the fact is that accepting a significantly increased amount of data from an
unauthenticated peer also significantly increases the surface to DoS attacks.
Even without surpassing the 64KB limit, this must be a concern. IKEv2's cookie
mechanism and puzzles try to increase the cost of the att
Paul Wouters wrote:
>> On 6/28/21 1:23 AM, Valery Smyslov wrote:
>>> - Is it OK that the intended status is Standards Track? Shouldn't it be
>>> BCP?
> I think because it contains IANA actions, it should be Standards Track.
Agreed.
(It would be funny for it to be Historic, but
Hi Daniel,
> To give more insight about these measurements, we implemented all three
> drafts and tested the performance of a medium-sized McEliece key exchange
> under different networking conditions (variable latency, packet loss, and
> throughput). Especially when packet loss or throughput
