| Re: Re: SHA-0 Broken | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
|
From: Florent Bersani (florent.bersani |
|
| Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 03:31:45 -0400 (EDT) | |
Mohamad Badra wrote:
The IMHO interesting question I asked you and that you apparently avoided to answer technically was: "why was IKEv2 invented since we already had TLS"?
I am not opposed to any protocol. Let me answer you by a question: why I have to create 'new' one? Why I shall create a new protocol whereas I already have the same services if I partially or if I simplify the use of IKEv2 or TLS?
I do not have definitive answers as I am currently working on such topics but I believe that an open-minded reflexion with scientific arguments on this question may bring many insights.
Florent, who, before taking winners, like to understand why they have won ;-)
- Re: Re: SHA-0 Broken, (continued)
-
Re: Re: SHA-0 Broken Nicolas Williams, August 17 2004
- Re: Re: SHA-0 Broken Florent Bersani, September 10 2004
- RE: Re: SHA-0 Broken Joseph Salowey, August 17 2004
-
Re: Re: SHA-0 Broken Mohamad Badra, August 18 2004
- Re: Re: SHA-0 Broken Florent Bersani, September 10 2004
- Re: Re: SHA-0 Broken Mohamad Badra, September 10 2004
-
Re: Re: SHA-0 Broken Nicolas Williams, August 17 2004
Results generated by Tiger Technologies using MHonArc.