Re: [saag] Additions to RFC 3631?

Trying my best to be unpopular:

Much as I like the concept of BTNS, it hasn't caught on. I see this RFC 
as providing useful guidance to practitioners, and non-existent 
technology doesn't cut it.

On the other hand, SSH "leap of faith" is very close to BTNS, and should 
in fact be mentioned in the paragraph that discusses SSH. In the context 
of SSH, "leap of faith" is much more innovative than what the current 
text focuses on.

Email security takes up a significant part of the document (Sec. 3.10). 
We might wish otherwise (I do), but none of these mechanisms has been a 
real-world success. And very few people write new Email software anyway. 
So I would eliminate this section altogether or fold it into a paragraph 
or two in "Security/Multipart".

Thanks,
	Yaron

On 05/21/2012 08:14 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>
>
> On 5/21/2012 10:06 AM, Nico Williams wrote:
>> On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Paul Hoffman<paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
>> wrote:
>>> +1 to adding EAP as a mechanism.
>>>
>>> +/-0 to adding channel bindings, given how few people understand them.
>>
>> EIther it's important/useful or not. If it is then having some text
>> in this RFC would help those people who don't understand CB.
>
> I'd add it - in fact, I would add both BTNS and TCP-AO, since neither
> are covered and both serve different purposes than the mechanisms listed.
>
> I also feel that Sec 2.4 should be expanded to explain in more detail
> how different levels of protection are used.
>
> Joe
> _______________________________________________
> saag mailing list
> saag@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag