Re: AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-dmm-requirements
Alexandru Petrescu <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.nemo |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Le 31/01/2014 00:18, Jouni Korhonen a écrit : > > On Jan 29, 2014, at 5:56 AM, Brian Haberman <[email protected]> wrote: > > [snip] > >> >> The above seems a little clunky. Does this work for everyone? >> >> >> A DMM solution MUST NOT introduce new security risks, or amplify >> existing security risks, that cannot be mitigated by existing security >> mechanisms or protocols. > > > Would work for me. To me this is too hig-level. IT's a good principle that we apply everywhere and it works. But I wonder there is some detail about it. Like for example: any new DMM solution involving route updates will not allow rogue routes to be inserted in the system. Alex > > - Jouni > > >> >> >> Regards, >> Brian >> > > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm > >