On Oct 22, 2013, at 1:02 PM, joel jaeggli <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm not so sure of that, I think there is a lack of broad-based consensus on > what balance to attempt, which is not to say that it was blown off, it's not > like there was an absence of debate.
Absolutely. There was tons of debate! :) >> So while I might agree in the abstract that your proposal makes sense, we >> have no solution that actually _does_ this. So mentioning it as an >> alternative isn't going to get us anywhere. Of course, we _also_ don't >> have a security model for the scenario Daniel's draft talks about. So I >> would say that both of these solutions are non-starters. > > If you come down on the side of relatively unrestrictive homenets one > imagines hosts security models treating those as hostile environments. Yes. Or if that's the kind of homenets that we wind up describing simply because we didn't address the security problem, which I think is the status quo. _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
