-- BEGIN included message
- To: Paul Koning <pkoning@xedia.com>
- Subject: Re: Last Call: Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol to
- From: "Scott G. Kelly" <skelly@redcreek.com>
- Date: Sat, 09 Aug 1997 20:38:30 +0000
- References: <8D8EF175E72CD111805800805F3198EE03925D4B@red-msg-46.dns.microsoft.com> <351C2432.CF89D5E3@redcreek.com> <9803301353.AA10616@kona.>
Paul Koning wrote: > Scott> The amount of MUSTs in the current spec are necessary if you > Scott> want your network to be SSSSEEEECCCCUUURRRREEE. > > Do you really believe that? If so, I'm worried. > > In fact, a big security spec is less likely to be secure than a small > one, given that the number of bugs increases with size (often more > than linearly). > I've apologized elsewhere for the tone of my post. My underlying motivation for the comments above is partly that this 'spec' has been worked on by some of the world's foremost security people, and I am confident that most of the unnecessary junk has already been cut from the design. I am not a security expert (yet), so I may be incorrect. However, viewing many of the names on this list in the appropriate historical perspective lends credence to the notion that, for the most part, this protocol suite has been very well thought out. As mentioned in related posts, time will tell.
-- END included message