Re: draft-ietf-idmr-igmp-mrdisc-10.txt

["Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>]

In message <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B15501483EA3@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.c
om>, "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" writes:
>                     Yes    No-Objection  Discuss *  Abstain  
>Bert Wijnen         [   ]     [ x ]       [   ]      [   ] 
>
>During the call/telchat I'd say: no further objection.
>I am amazed that Randy needs to take the DISCUSS for the
>security considerations sections while both Security ADs
>have a No-Ob (albeit with comments).
>

I said "no-ob" because I don't think they can solve the problem in any 
useful fashion.  We don't have local router-to-host security; the 
closest we have is the SEND effort for IPv6.  Per my note, I'd rather 
they were more honest about it.  (And the really hard problem here is 
authorization:  how do the individual hosts know the public keys for 
the real local routers?)


		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
		http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)