>>>>> "Romascanu," == Romascanu, Dan (Dan) <dromasca@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> -----Original Message----- From: Sam Hartman
>> [mailto:hartmans@xxxxxxx] Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 10:24
>> PM To: Leslie Daigle Cc: IESG; ietf@xxxxxxxx; pmol@xxxxxxxx
>> Subject: [PMOL] Re: A question about [Fwd: WG Review:
>> Performance Metrics atOther Layers (pmol)]
>>
>> >>>>> "Leslie" == Leslie Daigle <leslie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> writes:
>>
>> I doubt I'll use the output in security protocols.
>>
Romascanu,> Isn't it true that best security protocol designs
Romascanu,> always take performance aspects into account, because
Romascanu,> users will turn off the security features if they deem
Romascanu,> their performance reduction too great?
In many cases the performance of security protocols is not a huge issue at all with modern hardware.
There are a few important exceptions.
So measuring
Romascanu,> the performance of security protocols and the impact
Romascanu,> of activating security on other protocols and
Romascanu,> applications seems to be important.
It has not been my experience that it is important to a level where
metrics are requested or used. Certainly performance is something we
think about, and it is something that does get measured from time to
time and there are certain people who care about security performance
a lot.
Leslie asked for comments from uninvolved parties and I'm giving my
personal opinion that I would not find this work useful. If others
do, we should go charter it.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf