From: Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Should connecting to the Internet be Optional? (Half-serious!) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 10:30:55 +0200 (EET)
> On Mon, 4 Mar 2002, Tony Hain wrote: > > (Half-) seriously.. I think connecting to the Internet MAY be optional. > > I discussed in lcna-minreq thread; I think that if a node like that can > not implement IPSEC or security in general, it MUST NOT have a global > address. Under some cornercases, link-local and/or site-local _might_ be > remotely acceptable. The authors decided to change security related part of our LCNA draft. We can not show exact wording yet. But we hope that this can be comprehensive answer for the WG's security concern. 1) The ID must not permit null security LNCA. 2) The ID treats IPsec as a MUST requrirement. 3) When we introduce IPsec to LCNAs we will face practical issues. If so, we will feedback our issues to the WG as our current practice with somehow (ex. another draft or so). The heart of the decision is not to harm "well thought out architectural fundamentals" (as Tony Hain said), but to respect the one. At the same time, we also concern feasibility about LCNA security. Therefore, it seems better way to feedback our practices to the WG than to compromise the fundamentals. We hope our effort contribute the WG. thanks, ---- nobuo -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
