Re: [RPSEC] Feedback on draft-behringer-bgp-session-req-01

Folks,

I think that the following word might be useful as we discuss the proper
classification of GTSM within the taxonomy of security mechanisms:

http://www.worldwidewords.org/weirdwords/ww-tet1.htm

                              all in good fun ;-)
                                  Ron

Stephen Kent wrote:
> At 7:21 AM -0700 6/22/07, Joe Touch wrote:
> 
>> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
>>     protocol="application/pgp-signature";
>>     boundary="------------enigB1D3AB5BCF55D129E9BDB950"
>>
>> Hi, Barry,
>>
>> Barry Greene (bgreene) wrote:
>>
>>>  I guess we have differing views on the definition of "security." If I
>>>  can classify based on a policy which provides me more resistance from
>>>  attacks, then that is a "security tool." Hence, GTSM is a security
>>> tool.
>>
>>
>> GTSM could be classified as a security tool, but it is not IP layer
>> security. It is a mechanism an endpoint can use to increase its
>> resistance to attack, as you note, but it doesn't particularly protect
>> any single protocol layer or header.
>>
>> Joe
> 
> 
> 
> GTSM also has a very limited (although important) scope, since it is
> generally applicable only in contexts where one can predict the
> appropriate TTL value for legitimate traffic (and where active attacks
> on the path the traffic is traversing are not assumed to be viable).
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RPSEC mailing list
> RPSEC@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec
> 

_______________________________________________
RPSEC mailing list
RPSEC@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec