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

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

In message <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B15501483F23@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.c
om>, "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" writes:
>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".
>

That would be good.


>
>> -----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)
>> 
>> 
>


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