Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 09:04:33PM +0100, Stephen Farrell: > > I'd be happy to see the addition of TLS support in a future document. I > > also do not want TLS use to be required and I would like to see this > > draft move forward without TLS. > > My non-blocking comment asks about the why of that, which I > really do not get, it's not like it's hard or new.
I feel that there is an overhead associated with TLS, etc for development, debugging and runtime. All concern me, as does lack of security. For BMP, a protocol most likely to be confined to a lab than the wild Internet, I am more concerned about runtime cost and deployment (ie: initial development) than with security of the session. BMP could be run over an ipsec tunnel as an alternative to it being part of the protocol. For debugging purposes, I'd perfer to see ALL protocols have a "cleartext" option - not for normal runtime, for debugging. its darwinian, if someone chooses to always run cleartext. > But the DISCUSS from me is about truth in advertising - if > the WG are presenting this as something that cannot in practice > be secured (which is how I read the secdir thread) then that > should be what the document says. (See my suggested text.) I do not care if your suggested text is added or not; the existing security section of the draft covers the subject for me. Nor do I disagree that it could support TLS, just do it in a separate draft and move this one along. _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
