Subject: [anonsec] BTNS BoF draft minutes

From: Black_David at emc.com ([email-masked])
Date: Fri Nov 19 13:50:27 2004

A few clarifications:

> David Black (Dave) - I chair both IPS and RDDP wgs. Agree with Sam's
points on why
> this is interesting. This is interesting with potentially two level
structure. Both
> wgs use IPsec, and IPsec requires deploying keys in advance which is a
hassle. People
> look down on it, but use them because it is convenient.

Insert "This hassle causes use of things like group pre-shared keys."
between "hassle."
and "People".

> David - Agree. Get this, then produce the information that is needed to do
the
> linkage, and leave the actual linkage to the individual protocols. Part of
this
> setup is needed to support the linkage protocol by protocol. At least we
have
> a standard way to say setup, and here is the pieces of crypto that says
what
> was setup. Similar to IPsec with higher layer authentication. This is
better
> than today ... IPsec under covers ... then other stuff ... pray. (?)

"pray that the identities match between IPsec and the higher layer
authentication"

> Dave - Fixing keying is more important. People don't care about security
performance.

Last sentence should be rephrased to something like "Reducing integrity
coverage to increase security performance is of significantly less
interest."

Thanks,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
[email-masked]        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------