[19054] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: Session Key Negotiation
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Eric Rescorla)
Fri Dec 2 12:34:17 2005
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
To: Will Morton <macavity@well.com>
Cc: cryptography@metzdowd.com
Reply-To: EKR <ekr@rtfm.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 09:02:09 -0800
In-Reply-To: <438DD4C7.7030104@well.com> (Will Morton's message of "Wed, 30
Nov 2005 16:35:19 +0000")
Will Morton <macavity@well.com> writes:
> Eric Rescorla wrote:
>> May I ask why you don't just use TLS?
>>
>
> I would if I could, believe me. :o)
>
> The negotiated key will be used for both reliable (TCP-like) and
> non-reliable (UDP-like) connections, all tunnelled over a single UDP
> port for NAT-busting purposes. For the TCP-like component, I want to
> follow TLS as much as possible for obvious reasons.
I hate to sound like an advertisement, but why not use
Datagram TLS?
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rescorla-dtls-05.txt
-Ekr
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@metzdowd.com
