3 ms·
Some might argue that TLS is on Layer 6, 7 and 4 at the same time: https://security.stackexchange.com/a/93338 https://security.stackexchange.com/a/93338 Same f
by yzmtf2008 7y ago
Some might argue that TLS is on Layer 6, 7 and 4 at the same time: https://security.stackexchange.com/a/93338 https://security.stackexchange.com/a/93338
Same for NAT: https://networkengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/3145/what-layer-of-the-osi-model-does-nat-work https://networkengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/3145/...
> the names aren't as important as the layer and independence
That's the point. Layers don't mean anything in the real world where ossifications are a thing and replacing infrastructures has a cost. There are plenty of protocols that require cross-layer coupling (aka "layering violations") and asking for layering compliance really doesn't make anyone except layering lawyers' life better.
- paulddraper 7y agoI didn't say "layers don't mean anything." I said names don't mean anything, especially the OSI layers which as your post points out never really became a thing. TLS is a encryption layer that works with many protocols. Assigning some special number to it isn't the important part.
- yzmtf2008 7y ago> TLS is a encryption layer that works with many protocols. Assigning some special number to it isn't the important part. Yeah but the point is TLS also doesn't work by just magically changing TCP to TLS (where would you even change that?). It works by using HTTP over TLS. The issue is also not with OSI layers, but the fact that there are dependencies between different components that are supposed to be encapsulated from each other. In this view, HTTPS (HTTP + TLS) isn't really different from HTTP/3 (HTTPS + QUIC).