Re: RE: doubt
Bob Lindell <[email protected]> Fri, 24 Jan 2003 11:10:34 -0800
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.rsvp |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
> my personal opinion: the policy objects tried to repair the missing key > management to some extend (i.e. they provide the user identity for the > purpose of policy based admission control). No. Policy and hop-by-hop integrity perform complementary functions. Hop-by-hop integrity authenticates that the message came from a trusted neighboring router in the signaling path and that the contents have not been modified in-route. Policy identifies the sender of the request and is the basis for policy based admission control and charging. A sender gets charged for a request, not an intermediate router in the signaling path. > > the hop-by-hop security is perfectly fine for the charging model currently > used in the internet. i will send around a document giving detailed reason > s > for this statement in the near future. No. See above. Bob _______________________________________________ Rsvp mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/rsvp