Re: how secure mh should be? Re: identifiers and security

[Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>]

Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> On 2004-07-01, at 11.46, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
>
>
> > imho is important to reach a common criteria here.
> >
> > i think that the minimum goal should be that the resulting solution 
> > should be as secure as current fixed, single homed IPv6 internet.
> >
> > As you say, i wouldn't mind if the result is a bit more secure, but i 
> > wouldn't require it
>
>
> I've been struggling not to say that maybe we should. But that is more 
> of a layer9/mgmt issue as we then would require to define "how much" 
> better. But I think that every improvement is a big advantage.

Well, we have a generic threat analysis accepted as a WG draft. I think
(as Iljitsch said when discussing the agenda of the interim meeting)
that we will need to refine the threat analysis once we have a clear
sense of the recommended direction for the solution. Personally,
I think we should suspend the philosophical debate until then, and
concentrate on reaching a concrete outline of the wedge/3.5 model.

   Brian