Ok, I get it, but I would think this is to be left to the choice of the vendor if/how he provides security.
I am in favor of the approach where node requirements rfc defines the bare minimum for two nodes to be able to talk to each other, then phrase the other sections like setion 6.1, 6.2, i.e. if a node wants to implement security at IP layer, it must use RFCxyz... This might be my 6lowpan view however. Julien -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: mardi 26 février 2008 14:35 To: Julien Abeille (jabeille) Cc: ipv6@ietf.org Subject: RE: Making IPsec *not* mandatory in Node Requirement Julien, I guess the point is that some cases and deployment, secuirty is not required to be used. However, if you are making a product and you do not include security as part of the solution, than IPSec then you have a problem. John >Fine with this > >The important point as Kevin Kargel mentions is that there ARE use >cases where security is not required and/or end-to-end security is not >required and/or IPSec is not required. > >Julien > >-----Original Message----- >From: Bound, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: mardi 26 février 2008 13:24 >To: Julien Abeille (jabeille); Thomas Narten >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; >ipv6@ietf.org; Fred Baker (fred) >Subject: RE: Making IPsec *not* mandatory in Node Requirement > >On the contrary some of the laser sensing capabilities now could be >considered light so I guess it is what we mean by "light" technically >or from a physics/scientific view I took it to be light controlled by >sensors. > >/jim > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Julien Abeille (jabeille) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 3:18 PM >> To: Thomas Narten >> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Bound, Jim; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ipv6@ietf.org; Fred Baker (fred) >> Subject: RE: Making IPsec *not* mandatory in Node Requirement >> >> A sensor can only sense..., you are talking about a light actuator. >> >> Julien >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Thomas Narten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: mardi 26 février 2008 12:00 >> To: Julien Abeille (jabeille) >> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ipv6@ietf.org; Fred Baker >> (fred) >> Subject: Re: Making IPsec *not* mandatory in Node Requirement >> >> > - some applications might not require any security, e.g. a light >> > sensor = in your flat might not need it and not implement >> it, also due >> > to the = very low cost of the sensor. >> >> I agree. There is absolutely no need to prevent my neighbor >(or a bad >> guy outside my window) from being able to control/influence light >> sensors in my house. What possible harm could they do? >> >> Who needs security anyway! >> >> :-) >> >> Thomas >> >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >ipv6@ietf.org >Administrative Requests: http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >-------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
