Re: how secure mh should be? Re: identifiers and security

Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.multi6
Message-ID <[email protected]>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On 2004-07-01, at 11.46, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:

> 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

I've been struggling not to say that maybe we should. But that is more 
of a layer9/mgmt issue as we then would require to define "how much" 
better. But I think that every improvement is a big advantage.

- - kurtis -

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.3

iQA/AwUBQOT+6KarNKXTPFCVEQJN8gCgtB1f0kqtxJy6lDYH/VZFKQV59HAAnRrA
5ConZSi9xDB6WiEAsUu1/A+Z
=6HL3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.