Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > Vijay, > > Vijay Devarapalli wrote: > .. > > I think it is wrong it say the Mobile IP WG is wholeheartedly > > discussing this issue. It is more like that this issue has been > > forced upon the Mobile IP WG (like certain other security issues > > it was never meant to solve). > > I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here, but it's the > responsibility of every WG to solve all the security issues > associated with its own work; security is not a kind of > icing added afterwards to the cake. And if a security problem > is discovered late, it still has to be solved, even if that > means starting again. Security isn't optional in the IETF.
For one, it has been asked to solve key distribution between two hosts in the Internet without using any infrastructure (dont assume PKI, AAA, etc...). Mobile IP WG has been told that MIPv6 will not move ahead without solving this. and everyone knows it is a very hard problem. There are many more, but it will sound like a rant. I will stop with this. My only intention was to put a statement into a certain perspective. regards Vijay > > Regards > Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
