If I am reading this correctly the UK Centre for the Protection of
National Infrastructure
wants the IETF (or some other body) to produce a "companion document
to the IETF specifications that discusses the security aspects and
implications of the protocols, identifies the existing
vulnerabi
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> If I am reading this correctly the UK Centre for the Protection of
> National Infrastructure
> wants the IETF (or some other body) to produce a "companion document to
> the IETF specifications that discusses the security aspects and
> implications of the protocols, identif
Keith Moore wrote:
> Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>> If I am reading this correctly the UK Centre for the Protection of
>> National Infrastructure
>> wants the IETF (or some other body) to produce a "companion document to
>> the IETF specifications that discusses the security aspects and
>> implications
Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> Keith Moore wrote:
>> Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>>> If I am reading this correctly the UK Centre for the Protection of
>>> National Infrastructure
>>> wants the IETF (or some other body) to produce a "companion document to
>>> the IETF specifications that discusses the security
Keith, Joel,
It's difficult to imagine that these things could be adequately captured
in a static document, for TCP or any other protocol, because new threats
and countermeasures continue to be identified decades after the base
protocol is well-settled. Maybe something like an expanded version
Joel Jaeggli wrote:
Keith Moore wrote:
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
If I am reading this correctly the UK Centre for the Protection of
National Infrastructure
wants the IETF (or some other body) to produce a "companion document to
the IETF specifications that discusses the security aspects a
