Dymo stamps 4.1.15/17/2023 That would’ve been a great place to resolve the miscommunication that’s apparently been happening. For the sake of completeness, I’d also like to point out that we’ve brought up the topic of regeneration issues in September and November 2015, where we’ve explained why we use the word “regeneration”. The discussion has just now finally taken a direction where all parties are on the same page, which is really unfortunate timing. ![]() We’ve just been talking past each other for a really long time. The strategy has never been changed, at least not in the past 2-3 years I’ve been watching AODVv2. Isn't enough to bring the attention of the authors? In fact, the situation get even worse by changing the strategy to regenerating messages. > Then related comments were repeated again and again. Also, for that reason, I think that this issue of mutable messages deserves being called out explicitly in this section, especially if there are known or recommended ways of handling this (as is the case, for example, in the security considerations section of RFC5444 regarding the mutable header fields for hop-count/hop-limit of messages. For that reason, using SHOULD is - imo - dangerous here. > This is really difficult to do, in case messages are mutable in-transit, which appears to be the case for RERR and RM's i.e. > identity of information based on originator of the routing > distributed over multiple hops SHOULD also verify the integrity and In these situations, routing information that is > suspect, integrity and authentication techniques SHOULD be applied to > In situations where routing information or router identity are ![]() > In the comments from Thomas in 2010 (6 years ago), the issue has been brought out in, I quote: ![]() > And by simply searching the archive, I would like to point out that those comments are nothing new. Received: from ( ) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C51012D7DD for Fri, 02:22:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from () by localhost ( ) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id URhzjvQxFDDj for Fri, 02:22:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.196 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests= autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Original-To: from localhost (localhost ) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FC7212DAEE for Fri, 02:22:17 -0700 (PDT)
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |