Re: Mini WGLC draft-ietf-multi6-multihoming-threats-02.txt

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

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


On 2004-12-01, at 16.35, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> Margaret Wasserman wrote:
>> Hi Iljitsch,
>> At 1:56 PM +0100 12/1/04, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>>> Page 32:
>>>
>>>     - Third trusted party.  A third party establishes that a given
>>>
>>> "Identifier" is defined very differently from the use of "ULID" in 
>>> the more recent DT drafts, to the degree that an ULID can't be an 
>>> identifier according to this document's definition.
>> I think that this is a good point...
>> I am not sure that all of the threats related to redirection exist 
>> when you use ULIDs vs. a pure ID/Loc split.
>> Are there other places in the document where the threat model would 
>> be different for ULIDs than for IDs that are not also usable as 
>> locators?
>
> Personal opinion: this document is intended to discuss generic threats,
> and I think it's a bit unfair to expect it to discuss threats for a
> model that hadn't even been invented when the document was almost 
> final.
>
> So I would resolve this by adding a sentence that the specific form of
> ULID introduced by the recent design team was not considered and may
> (only may) introduce additional threats.
>
> That doesn't let us off the hook of course - ULID threats still need to
> be analyzed.

I agree with Brian, and I think that analyzing the threats to ULIDs 
would be a priority for the son-of-multi6.

- - kurtis -

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.1

iQA/AwUBQa3rRaarNKXTPFCVEQL2OQCfbRFJ4UnuYQqC8pfH8OfQ0fNBsvwAoIVm
IHWrHwpPP2YxuXecI2lLc7Ty
=mMQN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----