Re: Last Call: Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol to Proposed Standard

["Howard C. Berkowitz" <[e-mail]>]

At 9:02 -0500 3/31/98, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
>"Howard C. Berkowitz" writes:
>> I may have missed a writeup that already exists,
>
>Such as the documents we are discussing, yes....

You mean obscure things like draft-ietf-ipsec-arch-sec-04.txt?  I recognize
there are other working documents, but this is Last Call for a specific
one, which doesn't appear to reference certain issues.  Issues about which
prominent members of the community are extremely vocal -- well, more vocal
than usual :-)
>
>> but the two quotes below add to my feeling there needs to be a clear
>> architectural discussion of:
>
>The issues you raise are discussed in the documents. Please read them.
>
>Perry

Yes:  such as

>.  This document does not address all aspects of IPsec
>   architecture.  Subsequent documents will address additional
>   architectural details of a more advanced nature, e.g., use of IPsec
>   in NAT environments and more complete support for IP multicast


NAT and routing are more my areas than the satellite issues.  Nevertheles,
in an architecture document, I would like more meat that a "To be
addressed."  I'd like an initial statement of problems in the interctions
between NAT/firewalls and IPsec, with emphasis on vulnerability.  Sandy
Murphy;s BGP Security Analysis is the sort of document I have in mind.  The
architecture document doesn't need to contain this, but there should be a
reasonable pointer, which I don't see.  The emphasis is on the protocols
and protocol entities rather than their deployment.

Howar