[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Where does security belong?

To: Tom Benkart <teb@saturn.sys.acc.com>
Subject: Re: Where does security belong?
From: Steve Kent <kent@BBN.COM>
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 92 21:54:52 -0500
Cc: ipsec@ans.net
In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 02 Dec 92 07:59:56 -0500. <9212021259.AA11117@saturn.sys.acc.com>


Tom,

	The motivation for providing confidentiality, authenticoty,
etc. at the IP layer is to provide a uniform tool which can protect a
variety of transport protocols (UDP, TCP, ...) and which can be 
implemented at either end systems or intermediate systems.
There is a differenec between arguing about what facilities
are appropriate for includion in the IP header or IP option
field (an area in which I agree with Phil) vs. a discussion of
where to use an encapsulating security protocol in the protoocl stack.

Steve

References:

Where does security belong?

From: teb@saturn.sys.acc.com (Tom Benkart)

Prev by Date: Re: IPSEC & ROAD
Next by Date: RE: yet another protocol for ne
Prev by thread: Where does security belong?
Next by thread: Re: Where does security belong?
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread