From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <b64e09307b22983466d2cd9a91838716@proxima.alt.za>
To: micah@stetsonnet.org, 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Secure ftp Again
Date: Mon,  4 Apr 2005 06:12:31 +0200
From: lucio@proxima.alt.za
In-Reply-To: <b3b4f6f305040320013c9864a9@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: 
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 3273d362-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> Let's implement Transport Layer Security inside all our application
> layer protocols!

I can see the logic in the IESG (thanks, again, Geoff) mandating TLS
as a negotiated layer _and_ I can see the nightmare it gives rise to.
Properly designed, this means there is a single implementation of TLS
(Russ's comments about a TLS-savvy kernel, more likely a kernel module
in the brave new world after Linux) and a reality of each school
implementing it slightly differently and totally incompatibly.

My gut feel is that applying namespace rules (OK!) would alleviate the
nightmare, just as factotum very successfully simplifies a different
aspect of security.

++L