Re: Minutes / Notes

[Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

>>>> b) Introducing loc / id separation will require mapping, one way or
>>>> the
>>>> other.
>>>
>>> Wrong. The separation requires that a host know id and locators of
>>> its peer with reasonable security.
>>
>> That is a mapping state in it self.
>
> It is a state. You can call it a mapped state. But, there is no
> mapping service required.

This depends on what you mean with mapping service.

> That no service required means no additional security required.

You suggested that the tokens be transfered OOB, that is a security and 
a state as well. Most likely a very costly one.

>>>> This introduces new bindings that needs to be secured.
>
> is wrong and the existing bindings has certain security which
> is just enough for weak security.

The bindings will need some form of security. How you do this is part 
of the discussion.

> HIP, having no trust relationship between the creators of the initial
> packets, for example, means no better security, even though HIP
> tries to, in vain, cryptographically maintain identify of the creators.

I think this has been discussed by Pekka already.

- - kurtis -

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.2

iQA/AwUBPyZld6arNKXTPFCVEQLpUQCg2w0CvWO5my6RRmXQ4skGlX6gJLIAoJBZ
WQDqanZuYWEhiFD3xLyl5XJV
=avUm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----