On 1/25/14, 3:33 AM, "Randy Bush" <[email protected]> wrote:
>hence the "per se," meaining in and of itself. some cases of pouring >cement into a router (see london tube) are security issues, some are >not. > >how would you make that more clear? I think Warren’s suggestion of simply eliminating the assertion about whether it’s a security issue, per se or otherwise, and just saying that it’s out of scope is enough for the intro. > they are announcements of P by A >to B which are not agreed by all parties concerned (including A, B, >neighbors of A and B, the originator of P, ...). the problem lies in >detecting them, especially from a distance. So I think that goes back to my suggestion that since you already discuss intent in 3.22, that might be a place to add something about leaks, either as a part of that req or a follow-on, because that’s really what you’re saying here - we understand theoretically what they are, but not how to detect them such that we could do anything to prevent the undesired ones. Wes This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout. _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
