Re: [saag] should we revise rfc 3365?

Hi, 

I see this argument quite often that we should not impose strong
security requirements on protocols because there may be this use case
where no security is needed. 

I am wondering what protocols you are thinking about that need no
security. 

Ciao
Hannes

> -----Original Message-----
> From: saag-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:saag-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of
> ext Mouse
> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 6:40 AM
> To: saag@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [saag] should we revise rfc 3365?
> 
> >> [RFC 3365]
> > To open a can of worms, this would also be a good doc in which to
> > discuss the need for secure ports, and whether (or not) to ever
> > assign meaning to the difference between system and user ports...
> 
> I submit that attempting to make such a distinction is effectively
> meaningless, and has been ever since single-user machines - machines
> owned personally by individuals who are their administrators - became
> even moderately common.  It meant something (though even then not
much)
> in the days of large multi-user machines whose administrators could
> reasonably be treated by the rest of the net as more trusted than the
> bulk of their users.  Those days are long past; between personal
> machines and pwn3d windows boxen, I think it is now pointless.
> 
> To look at it another way, there can be no distinction between system
> and user ports from the point of view of network-observable behaviour,
> since the "system"-vs-"user" distinction, to the extent that it exists
> at all, is entirely private to each host; it is, therefore, pointless
> to try to mandate any such difference.
> 
> /~\ The ASCII				  Mouse
> \ / Ribbon Campaign
>  X  Against HTML		mouse@rodents-montreal.org
> / \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
> _______________________________________________
> saag mailing list
> saag@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag