Re: [homenet] Security goals

Hmm. I just scheduled the agenda, and homenet and opsawg conflict. I may or may not be able to wander from one meeting to the other.

On Mar 11, 2012, at 2:44 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
> On Mar 10, 2012, at 5:04 PM, Tim Chown wrote:
>> It's good to see some traction in service discovery and naming.
>> 
>> We also have a fifth area, security.  The text as it stands says a few
>> things that apply to this area, e.g.
>> 
>> a) An assumption of "Simple Security" with default deny on the CER.  
>>   This implies PCP or uPnP to support punching holes.  The text 
>>    also talks about addressability vs reachability.
> 
>> d) Mention of "Advanced Security", which talks about the ability to
>>    install 3rd party policies.  Some have suggested removing this
>>    from the initial homenet spec.
> 
> One of these days I'll figure out what is "advanced" about "advanced security". I think the point of interest is that it can be expected to not be maintained (how many people maintain their norton-or-whatever-firewall contracts?) and will therefore allow a lot of stuff through.
> 
> I will be doing a talk in opsawg trying to make the firewall story a little less "I don't like this and I do like that", more about what a firewall does and doesn't do and what models one might consider - at least three of them. If there is interest in homenet, I could comment on that discussion.
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baker-opsawg-firewalls
>  "On Firewalls in Internet Security", Fred Baker, 20-Jan-12
> _______________________________________________
> homenet mailing list
> homenet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet