Hi Markus,
Thanks for your quick response, inline,
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Markus Stenberg
<markus.stenb...@iki.fi> wrote:
> On 20.11.2015, at 16.47, Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.i...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>> It is question of threats <-> risks <-> mitigation analysis. Only thing
>>> HNCP security really brings is _in case of insecure L2_ _some_ security for
>>> routing/psk state. If we assume every other protocol is secured (e.g. SEND,
>>> DHCPv6 ’secure mode’) it may be actually worthwhile, but as long as e.g.
>>> DHCPv4 is not secure (and it will never be I suspect), the amount of
>>> threats you actually take out of the picture by forcing ’securing’ HNCP
>>> alone is not really significant.
>>>
>>> To sum it up: I recommend still SHOULD MTI, MUST MTU _if and only if_ L2,
>>> but at least _my_ home does not _have_ any insecure L2, or at least
>>> insecure in a sense that HNCP running there would be my greatest worry.
>> If MTI is not a MUST, how can you MUST the MTU?
>
> The MUST MTU here is only for (relatively small) subset of U cases.
> Therefore, if a product (or a network) does not see those cases happening,
> broad MTI/MTU causes extra bloat without any benefit (like my home network
> case I mentioned).
Can you propose text that clearly describes this for developers and
implementors to replace the current text and we'll see where we are
at? If it makes enough sense, I may be okay with that. Stephen also
supported my discuss, so both of us may need to review and possibly
tweak it. The current text isn't clear enough to convey what's been
described int his thread.
>
> For example, given Markus’ Home Network product does not support insecure
> (L2-wise) network, having MTI DTLS/TLS causes bloat and solves nothing and
> makes product harder to ship.
>
>> I think my question on what is "secure mode" and request for a
>> reference is still outstanding.
>
> Ah, sorry, simply too much mail backlog. ’secure mode’ in that context should
> be probably just secure _transport_ enabled on that particular link/for a
> particular remote endpoint, that is, the {TLS,DTLS} based one described in
> the rest of the text.
OK, then for the text where this shows up in this draft, please do
replace it with what is meant exactly.
>
> I wonder if we should edit dncp too, I don’t think that term appears anywhere
> elsewhere in the document.
Yes, please. Since it isn't defined anywhere, just stating what was
intended would be much better.
Thank you,
Kathleen
>
> Cheers,
>
> -Markus
>
--
Best regards,
Kathleen
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
