Hmm. I just scheduled the agenda, and homenet and opsawg conflict. I may or may not be able to wander from one meeting to the other.
On Mar 11, 2012, at 2:44 PM, Fred Baker wrote: > On Mar 10, 2012, at 5:04 PM, Tim Chown wrote: >> It's good to see some traction in service discovery and naming. >> >> We also have a fifth area, security. The text as it stands says a few >> things that apply to this area, e.g. >> >> a) An assumption of "Simple Security" with default deny on the CER. >> This implies PCP or uPnP to support punching holes. The text >> also talks about addressability vs reachability. > >> d) Mention of "Advanced Security", which talks about the ability to >> install 3rd party policies. Some have suggested removing this >> from the initial homenet spec. > > One of these days I'll figure out what is "advanced" about "advanced > security". I think the point of interest is that it can be expected to not be > maintained (how many people maintain their norton-or-whatever-firewall > contracts?) and will therefore allow a lot of stuff through. > > I will be doing a talk in opsawg trying to make the firewall story a little > less "I don't like this and I do like that", more about what a firewall does > and doesn't do and what models one might consider - at least three of them. > If there is interest in homenet, I could comment on that discussion. > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baker-opsawg-firewalls > "On Firewalls in Internet Security", Fred Baker, 20-Jan-12 > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
