Re: [IPFIX] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ipfix-protocol-rfc5101bis-05.txt
Brian Trammell <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ipfix |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi, Nevil, I don't think 5102bis should discuss protocol-level security considerations at all -- these are for 5101bis. I'm still reviewing Ben's comments (which do indeed seem to apply to 5101bis), and will copy the ipfix list on my comments/questions thereon, probably tomorrow (well, later today, technically, CET). Cheers, Brian On Jan 10, 2013, at 10:44 PM, Nevil Brownlee <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Brian: > > Happy new year! Thanks for all the work you've put into 5101bis. > > I see Ben Laurie's security review of 5102bis, pointing out that > IPFIX "doesn't say anything about authenticating a requester, nor > about access control." That made me wonder whether 5102bis should > do so; what do you think? > > Cheers, Nevil > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Nevil Brownlee Computer Science Department | ITS > Phone: +64 9 373 7599 x88941 The University of Auckland > FAX: +64 9 373 7453 Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand _______________________________________________ IPFIX mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix