Hi Derek we discussed the requirements quite a bit in the group already and the conclusion of the discussion was that we provide two solutions, one based on symmetric keys and the other based on asymmetric keys.
The asymmetric key solution provides authentication of the individual sender where the symmetric key solution demonstrates knowledge of the group key. Ciao Hannes On 03/07/2017 06:23 PM, Derek Atkins wrote: > Peter, > > peter van der Stok <[email protected]> writes: > >> After reading Jim's statement, my position is a bit different. >> Multicast security is severely needed. >> Not making it a WG document augments the risk that the subject is >> frozen and no progress is made. >> To guarantee progress, adoption seems to me the right way forward. > > Can you please define what you mean by "Multicast Security"? Are you > just looking for Group Confidentiality? Do you want Group Message > Integrity without Source Authentication? Do you want Source > Authentication? "multicast security" is too generic a term by itself > and as others have pointed out depending on which specific security > services you're talking about you will get a multitude of (potentially > conflicting) requirements. For example, you cannot get source > authentication with a shared-key-only solution. > > I recommend that, before adoption, an explicit set of requirements be > defined and inserted into the scope. > >> Peter >> >> Jim Schaad schreef op 2017-03-07 02:55: >>> After thinking about this for a long time, I will reluctantly state a >>> position. >>> >>> I do not believe that the WG should adopt this document at least until >>> such a time as a version has been released which does a substantially >>> better job of restricting the scope of the problem to be solved. If >>> the WG then decides to relax that scope so be it. >>> >>> Jim > > -derek >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Ace mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
