Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #152 (security-threats): draft-ietf-roll-security-threats - Add further clarification/information - Section 5

From: "roll issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 20:51:13 -0000

#152: draft-ietf-roll-security-threats - Add further clarification/information -
Section 5

Changes (by [email-masked]):

 * status:  assigned => closed
 * resolution:   => fixed

Comment:

 I've made a number of changes to tighten up the text, and provided a link
 to the 2002 Sybil paper.
 As for sinkhole vs blackhole, I agree that they might better terms.  The
 terms chosen are from Karlof2003. I found the link, and added it.  Sink
 holes do not necessarily drop traffic.

 http://nest.cs.berkeley.edu/papers/sensor-route-security.pdf

-- 
---------------------------------------+-------------------------------
 Reporter:  [email-masked]  |       Owner:  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect                     |      Status:  closed
 Priority:  major                      |   Milestone:
Component:  security-threats           |     Version:
 Severity:  In WG Last Call            |  Resolution:  fixed
 Keywords:                             |
---------------------------------------+-------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/152#comment:2>
roll <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/>