Agree with your points. I want a "MUST".  

Brian

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan York [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 1:46 PM
To: Brian Rosen
Cc: 'David A. Bryan'; 'p2psip'
Subject: Re: Multiple RFCs or one giant RFC? Re: [P2PSIP] adding tcp-test
option to reload

Brian,

On Nov 6, 2008, at 12:44 PM, Brian Rosen wrote:

> In fact, if there was a way to guarantee the protocol wouldn't work  
> without
> TLS, I'd prefer to do that.
>
> I'm tired of marketing folks looking to save a buck of development  
> costs
> slicing off security and foisting insecure implementations on  
> unsuspecting
> consumers, only to be among the loudest voices slamming their  
> engineering
> guys for why the security fix is necessary or can't be done  
> yesterday when
> the problems show up.

DY> Wearing my "security" hat, I completely agree with you.  It has  
seemed to me that in the past various protocols have gone out with  
security only an afterthought (if at all), resulting in something  
having to be baked on later.  So there's no argument from me on this  
point.  In my ideal world, it's all "secure" from the start.

DY> David was advancing two use cases where security is, in his  
opinion, not really required and was advocating for having a non-TLS  
mode of the protocol.  Wearing my "product manager" hat, I can see his  
points .

DY> My argument is that either: 1) security like TLS should be a MUST  
in the protocol; or 2) it should be carved out into a separate RFC  
that can be referenced and implemented.

DY> What we don't need are "SHOULD"s that will effectively mean that  
the security protection is never implemented.

Dan

-- 
Dan York, CISSP, Director of Emerging Communication Technology
Office of the CTO    Voxeo Corporation     [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone: +1-407-455-5859  Skype: danyork  http://www.voxeo.com
Blogs: http://blogs.voxeo.com  http://www.disruptivetelephony.com

Build voice applications based on open standards.
Find out how at http://www.voxeo.com/free





_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip

Reply via email to