Rohan Mahy wrote:
Hi Fredrik,
1) In this version I added text in the current Security Consideration
to help clarify this. See the diffs in Section 13 here:
http://svn.resiprocate.org/rep/ietf-drafts/fluffy/draft-ietf-sip-outbound.diff.html
Thanks for pointing that out.
I thought I already sent you a message about this topic, but in any
case I will post my response here. The goal is to make sure that *no
new attacks* are made possible by the introduction of this extension.
Ok. Adding complexity can easily lessen security though. I don't agree
to the principle of adding something meant for security when you're not
sure it actually helps in any case [1], so unless you figure out _why_
the draft needs to say these things (and document that, please) I would
opt for removing it from the draft.
I will however stop nagging about this now, since you are the document
editor and not me.
/Fredrik
[1] like an unnamed Swedish bank allegedly having seven identically
configured firewalls connected serially between the Internet and their
internal network
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
