Re: Son of IKE: A proposal for moving forward

[Uri Blumenthal <uri@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Michael Thomas wrote:
>  > And if your idea of applicabilty excludes VPN, we are
>  > not on the same page.
> 
>    Indeed, maybe we're not. I'll point out that TLS
>    doesn't support VPN's either, but seems to have
>    quite a bit of applicability even with its
>    impoverished feature set. TLS's biggest weakness
>    is that it doesn't work with connectionless
>    transports. IPsec does, of course. This is why
>    I wonder if there isn't two different problem
>    spaces.

Then maybe what you need is something like connection-less TLS?
-- 
Regards,
Uri-David
-=-=-<>-=-=-
<Disclaimer>