Re: [Anima-bootstrap] Meeting notes from 6/24

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 25 June 2015 18:09 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: anima-bootstrap@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: anima-bootstrap@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DF241A9251 for <anima-bootstrap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jun 2015 11:09:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zU0T5TUb27RD for <anima-bootstrap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jun 2015 11:09:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F02B01A9250 for <anima-bootstrap@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Jun 2015 11:09:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9EB6200A3 for <anima-bootstrap@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Jun 2015 14:24:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 20E5763AE8; Thu, 25 Jun 2015 14:09:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02BD063AD9 for <anima-bootstrap@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Jun 2015 14:09:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "anima-bootstrap@ietf.org" <anima-bootstrap@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <3AA7118E69D7CD4BA3ECD5716BAF28DF22FF3D12@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com>
References: <6CC122F1-FAC4-4A06-BBC0-D32C8BAEBD2D@cisco.com> <3AA7118E69D7CD4BA3ECD5716BAF28DF22FF3D12@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 24.4.2
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 14:09:41 -0400
Message-ID: <19598.1435255781@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima-bootstrap/L8Cb3kr5FRf3kRDsVPOc-iOEzcM>
Subject: Re: [Anima-bootstrap] Meeting notes from 6/24
X-BeenThere: anima-bootstrap@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list for the bootstrap design team of the ANIMA WG <anima-bootstrap.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/anima-bootstrap>, <mailto:anima-bootstrap-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/anima-bootstrap/>
List-Post: <mailto:anima-bootstrap@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:anima-bootstrap-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima-bootstrap>, <mailto:anima-bootstrap-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 18:09:45 -0000

Michael Behringer (mbehring) <mbehring@cisco.com> wrote:
    > A high level question up front: When we wrote draft-pritikin, we
    > started from the premise that the draft should describe the most secure
    > model as a reference, then in section 6, explains alternative models
    > which may be less secure, but more useful for certain environments. Are
    > we still sticking to this philosophy "describe best possible, and
    > separately less secure alternatives"? (I hope so ;-)

I think that this is the best way.

I wanted to describe the less secure ways as "mitigations" --- things you
do because you are unable to do a secure(r) thing.  Brian Carpenter did not
like that term, and I'm still trying to understand why.


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-