Re: [Autoconf] Security (Was: Re: Call for comments to a new AUTOCONF charter proposal.)

["Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <[e-mail]>]

> Of course, in ad hoc networking the full scope of security problems is

> wider. Presumably there are Byzantine security issues, for instance.
But 
> technically those are part of the routing protocol.

If having an address is a pre-requisite of the routing protocol, then
leaving everything to the routing protocol is too late.

> I'm not sure what 
> MANET or ROLL has done in this space, for instance. Do you know? I do 
> not believe these are for this working group, however.

MANET has just agreed to accept work on specifying authentication TLVs
for the packet/message format RFC 5444 (which itself outlines the
concept).
That's the main work, i.e. it is limited.

> Anyway, I think we've debated long enough about this particular topic.

If the conclusion is that the issues of address configuration and
security configuration are intertwined (really both are also part
of the wider issue of identity) and that therefore this needs to be
considered by the WG and should be mentioned in the charter, then OK.

********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************