At 3:28 PM -0800 2/23/06, Joe Touch wrote: >... >Channel binding isn't a motivation for BTNS. BTNS is a place where we >are exploring it. Sorry. I though it was one of the cited motivations. I'll have to read the latest problem statement I-D. > >... >That's what I'd like to avoid by encouraging using a cross-transport >solution, e.g., at the network layer. The reasons that they chose to not use Ipsec are based on per-packet overhead, for the very small RTP packets. Nothing we do in BTNS is going to address that concern. >... >We have been talking about BTNS use cases; as I noted before, one (the >original one, and at least one of the current ones) is to protect the >transport layer. The original one you cited, yes, but that has not been the primary focus of most of the more recent discussion, I think. >I *fully* agree with the fact that TCP/MD5 doesn't offer the same >protection as IPsec, but it does protect the transport layer. That >differentiates it from TLS. it offers some protection, but to say that it "protects" the layer might surprise folks who think confidentiality is important :-). Steve
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.