[dtn-security] (no subject)

<M.Bhutta@surrey.ac.uk> Mon, 16 February 2009 14:41 UTC

Received: from mail82.messagelabs.com (mail82.messagelabs.com [195.245.231.67]) by maillists.intel-research.net (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id n1GEfiNN002966; Mon, 16 Feb 2009 06:41:45 -0800
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: M.Bhutta@surrey.ac.uk
X-Msg-Ref: server-11.tower-82.messagelabs.com!1234794794!66666254!8
X-StarScan-Version: 6.0.0; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [131.227.102.140]
Received: (qmail 10902 invoked from network); 16 Feb 2009 14:33:17 -0000
Received: from ads40.surrey.ac.uk (HELO ads40.surrey.ac.uk) (131.227.102.140) by server-11.tower-82.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 16 Feb 2009 14:33:17 -0000
Received: from EVS-EC1-NODE4.surrey.ac.uk ([131.227.102.139]) by ads40.surrey.ac.uk with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 16 Feb 2009 14:33:07 +0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C99043.7BBFA4FD"
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 14:33:07 -0000
Message-ID: <D32AA0865A214D4B9C1A6C993700BD8B2B7E10@EVS-EC1-NODE4.surrey.ac.uk>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Index: AcmQQ3u6VA382mQzRsyXflFz74TNeA==
From: <M.Bhutta@surrey.ac.uk>
To: <dtn-security@maillists.intel-research.net>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Feb 2009 14:33:07.0329 (UTC) FILETIME=[7BEFC710:01C99043]
Cc: dtn-interest@maillists.intel-research.net
Subject: [dtn-security] (no subject)
X-BeenThere: dtn-security@maillists.intel-research.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: DTN Security Discussion <dtn-security.maillists.intel-research.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://maillists.intel-research.net/mailman/listinfo/dtn-security>, <mailto:dtn-security-request@maillists.intel-research.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://maillists.intel-research.net/pipermail/dtn-security>
List-Post: <mailto:dtn-security@maillists.intel-research.net>
List-Help: <mailto:dtn-security-request@maillists.intel-research.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://maillists.intel-research.net/mailman/listinfo/dtn-security>, <mailto:dtn-security-request@maillists.intel-research.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 14:41:46 -0000

Hi, 

As DTN support many different naming conventions, but all names should be unique for communication to occur without errors. So,
1. To what extent it is correct that source will know the destination endpoint Id ...

The other question is: 
   "The problem is that current IBC schemes effectively
   act only as a kind of "group certificate" where all of the nodes
   using a given private key generator can use a single "certificate",   
   but the problem of validity for that "certificate" (which will
   contain the generator's parameters) is the same problem as verifying
   a CA certificate in a standard PKI"

1. To what extent we need the certificates, If above naming convention is true .. 

I know it is generic, but please comment your thoughts it will help to dig into problem, 

thanks,

regards,
Nasir