-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Danny Mayer wrote: > Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >> Jari Arkko wrote: >> ... >> >>> o Whether we actually want to define a secure approach to >>> proxies. Here I'd personally be OK even with no security >>> for proxying, as long as the above issues were corrected. >>> But you could also argue the other way; the IETF usually >>> does require mandatory-to-implement security mechanisms >>> to go with its protocols. >> >> >> >> I'd be a bit concerned if I could, for example, walk into >> my neighbour's apartment, hop to his wireless LAN, and >> find myself getting proxy ND from a third neighbour I'd >> never met, without some sort of AAA process. But for >> an Experimental draft we can't really insist on a solution - >> for me the question is whether the warnings are sufficient. >> >> Brian >> > You don't even need to leave your apartment to do that. It's scary how > insecure people's wireless LAN setups are. Your 'insecure' is some people's 'plug and play' for their visitors. While I don't always agree with it, it's not clear it's not an equally desirable outcome. Joe -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDMEeGE5f5cImnZrsRAvg8AJ968up6jiuDuTlrMRKqPigN0iFBAgCgr9/K uSxGFXOgj0KfNPZGVNI6HBU= =WMap -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
