[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Crypto-agility requirements: Hop-by-hop vs. end-to-end (from Issue 303)

To: <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>, <radiusext@ops.ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Crypto-agility requirements: Hop-by-hop vs. end-to-end (from Issue 303)
From: <Pasi.Eronen@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 09:29:28 +0200
Accept-language: en-US
Acceptlanguage: en-US
In-reply-to: <BLU137-W325147500ECD72093A04BE93330@phx.gbl>
References: <BLU137-W144D00CA8C6A369B3BF72D93330@phx.gbl> <BLU137-W325147500ECD72093A04BE93330@phx.gbl>

Bernard Aboba wrote

> A proposal for addressing this would be to state explicitly that
> solutions are only required to address hop-by-hop security.   
> more explanation is required, one or more of the following points
> might be included:
<...>

I think just stating this explicitly would be sufficient, and more 
explanation isn't needed...

Best regards,
Pasi

--
to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>

References:
- Crypto-agility requirements: Hop-by-hop vs. end-to-end (from Issue 303)
  - From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
- RE: Crypto-agility requirements: Hop-by-hop vs. end-to-end (from Issue 303)
  - From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>

Prev by Date: RE: review of draft-zorn-radius-pkmv1-04.txt
Next by Date: RFC 5607 on Remote Authentication Dial-In User Service (RADIUS) Authorization for Network Access Server (NAS) Management
Previous by thread: RE: Crypto-agility requirements: Hop-by-hop vs. end-to-end (from Issue 303)
Next by thread: Crypto-agility requirements: Automated Key Management concern (from Issue 303)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread