hi russ, >>> Security compares what the state currently looks like to what the state >>> should look like. >> the problem is how does one know what the state of the system 'should' >> look like? > > My understanding has always been that the point of any security system > is provide a secure and verifiable indication of what the system should > look like in order to compare current events against that standard.
you have been saying that for years. and i understand your point. what i have never understood is *how* you can tell how things 'should' be. so the current sidr proposals are for what we *know how to do.* they are not perfect, but they are a radical improvement on the current state. i am very open to clue on how to rigorously define how things 'should' be, especially if it is rigorously testable given real world constraints. randy _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
