Subject: RE: [Manet-dt] MANET packet security

From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 09:57:35 +0100

> I think the base specs of our MANET protocols should include a
> mechanism to secure packets, that is authenticate the source, as well
> as ensure the contents of the packet have not been modified, replayed,
> etc.

If we want to achieve a timescale anything like that which the MANET
WG is chartered for, I do not agree. Of course we must ensure that
the capability to add this is possible - and message (and packet for
those who want hop by hop rather than end to end) TLVs provide this.
But trying to standardise a mechanism in the base spec, I would be
strongly against - and I'm coming from a background which would want
such a mechanism (but maybe not the one devised).

> If we need to do this type of procedure, I think it should probably
> live with the packetBB document or another BB document. What do you
> think?

Now that's different. If someone wants to work on a separate building
block that is compatible with the formats and functions of the
protocols,
fine - except for issues of whether it's a MANET WG item, and if not
ought to stay author draft. Calling it up in a Standards Track RFC
(DYMO, OLSRv2, maybe SMF) would be problematic of course.

********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************

_______________________________________________
Manet-dt mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dt

---

From: "Ian Chakeres" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 08:19:11 -0700

draft-fenner-zinin-rtg-standard-reqts-01.txt

4.1.  Requirements for Proposed Standard
<snip>
   3.  The security architecture of the protocol must be set forth
       explicitly.  The security architecture must include mechanisms
       for authenticating protocol messages and may include other forms
       of protection.

I'm unsure how we can achieve this requirement without something like
what I described.

Chris, if you know how we can fulfil this requirement in another way -
I am open to doing it.

Ian

I agree with you Chris that should something be created, it should
live in another document.