Re: next task, applicability statement

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 11:37:53AM -0400, Stephen Kent wrote:
> At 6:11 PM -0500 5/31/05, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> >On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 10:45:37AM -0400, Stephen Kent wrote:
> >[...]
> >>  I mention this because one of the major motivations cited by Joe in
> >>  the BOF was precisely protecting e-BGP sessions against active
> >>  attacks, e.g., resets.
> >
> >It was, yes, but there are other uses too, plus use between routers has
> >hardly been ruled out.  Surely you don't think we should just conclude
> >this WG and go home...
> >
> >Nico
> >--
> 
> I do not mean to suggest that the possible invalidation of one of the 
> several proposed rationales for BTNS should cause BTNS to dissolve. 
> But, I recall that this specific motivation was used to justify 
> adopting IPsec as the basis for BTNS, vs. SSL/TLS, because of the 
> need to protect BGP sessions against spurious TCP RESETs. If we 
> decide that BGP session protection is not likely to be effected via 
> IPsec, unless the DoS concerns are addresses to the satisfaction of 
> ISPs, then we might revisit the decision that IPsec is the candidate 
> protocol to be used for BTNS.

I was asking for BTNS-like IPsec features long before the first ANONSEC
BoF.

The ANONSEC BoF had good timing, it brought together groups with
different uses for the same idea and reached critical mass.

Nico
--

-- 
_______________________________________________