how secure mh should be? Re: identifiers and security

Hi Kurtis,

imho is important to reach a common criteria here.

i think that the minimum goal should be that the resulting solution 
should be as secure as current fixed, single homed IPv6 internet.

As you say, i wouldn't mind if the result is a bit more secure, but i 
wouldn't require it

Regards, marcelo


El 01/07/2004, a las 9:57, Kurt Erik Lindqvist escribió:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> [Catching up a bit]
>
> On 2004-06-28, at 13.52, Erik Nordmark wrote:
>
>>
>> Thus something which is quite insecure (weaker than NOID as above) 
>> when
>> IPsec isn't used, but when IPsec is used it is as strong as with IPsec
>> in
>> today's Internet.
>> Is anybody interested in exploring these ideas further?
>
> Personally I think that we at some point need to clarify the "do no
> harm" view. I.e do we want to try and achieve something better than
> today? Or is relying on the security extension headers of IPv6 give us
> some slack? Or do we just agree that the world is ok today and trying
> to do better is shooting for the stars?
>
> I personally wouldn't mind aiming for something a bit higher than 
> today.
>
> - - kurtis -
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGP 8.0.3
>
> iQA/AwUBQOPD0qarNKXTPFCVEQLbjACgpMCLlTWA5QTXLStMOEJKErl/Dx0An33D
> oVSIXu9eHjQktzyFIVta6/uc
> =p8By
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>