Re: [Ace] Group Communication Security Disagreements

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ludwig and Mike,

In thinking about this problem, I wonder if the challenge here really is
a matter of layering.  First of all, if we were to do source
authentication, what would that mean?  Would it mean that all messages
were signed?  If so, what sort of format would we be talking about? 
IPSEC-AH?  Higher?  I state this because typically, although by no means
always, we have at least some separation between protocol and content. 
I just wonder where that line would be here.

I agree that source authentication is important, both in terms of group
joins and in terms of message content for all the reasons previously
stated.  I just wonder if we need to specify all of that in this WG, or
if we can state what we think the right answer is above or below.**

Eliot


On 9/12/16 9:32 AM, Ludwig Seitz wrote:
> On 2016-09-09 21:44, Michael StJohns wrote:
>> Hi -
>>
>> It's been over a month since there's been any further discussion on this
>> topic.   Given the record I would suggest a lack of consensus to proceed
>> on basis of two items:  1) A roughly even split on the vocal yays and
>> nays on the subject of symmetric key multicast for control functions and
>> 2) a failure to address the specific concern of "How do you enforceably
>> keep a cheap, unsafe-in-the-broader-internet security mechanism off the
>> broader internet?"
>>
>> Your mileage may vary.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>
> Can we at least agree to work on group communication with source
> authentication?
>
> /Ludwig
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ace mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace