Subject: [Roll] security update?

From: Kris Pister <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 06:44:58 -0700

Since we weren't able to get an update on the security draft at this 
meeting, perhaps we could get an email summary?

I'm confident that we can come up with a good routing protocol, and I'm 
100% certain that the networks it serves will be attacked.  We need to 
come up with something that is strong, but simple enough that everyone 
uses it by default.  My strong preference would be that security is an 
intrinsic part of the routing protocol, and can't be "turned off".

ksjp

---

From: Tzeta Tsao <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 09:21:16 -0400

Hi Kris, All,

We are indeed working on an update to the security draft and will
present it once the revision is in shape. At the same time, I welcome,
and I believe other authors, too, any comments and suggestions.

I share the view that security should be an integral part of a ROLL
protocol, but not an after-the-fact extension. In fact, even considering
such diversified applications and capabilities of the LLN devices, I
still hope this working group will come to the consensus that the
stipulation should be such that an implementation of a ROLL protocol may
choose not to conform rather than be given the choice of reduced
security services.

Regards,
Tzeta

Kris Pister wrote:
> I'm confident that we can come up with a good routing protocol, and
> I'm 100% certain that the networks it serves will be attacked.  We
> need to come up with something that is strong, but simple enough that
> everyone uses it by default.  My strong preference would be that
> security is an intrinsic part of the routing protocol, and can't be
> "turned off".
>
> ksjp
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>