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

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

So some explanantion about the issues and why it is a hard problem
and such would be good things to document. Much better than just
do some handwaving that they "might look at it in the futrue".

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven M. Bellovin [mailto:smb@research.att.com]
> Sent: donderdag 3 april 2003 16:03
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Cc: iesg-secretary@ietf.org; iesg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: draft-ietf-idmr-igmp-mrdisc-10.txt 
> 
> 
> 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)
> 
>