Re: [Anima] Brian/anima: trust notion of ASA communications

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]> wrote:
    >> It seems that in an autonomic network that there ought to be a service that
    >> can be used to ask, "should I trust node FOO to do X?".

    > Sure, and i am going to run a hacked ACP node thats announcing in GRASP
    > to be the "best-ever" node to provide that service ;-) How to you
    > prohibit me to happen ? -> Anser: i dont have a fitting certificate, or
    > there is some ACP crowd intelligence that says i am untrustworthy.

a) How are you going to connect to the ACP?
b) If you say that it is because you are going to attack some existing node,
   then no number of certificate bits are going to help.

    >> That could be the (cmc)RA or another node so designated.

    > Right. Thats the "role" indications in certificate approach. And of
    > course we want to limit that to really "lifetime role assignments"
    > (lifetime larger than cert lifetime..).

But, that's the only role we need.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [
]     [e-mail]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [