On Mon, 2004-11-22 at 09:03, Dave Crocker wrote:
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 12:10:01 -0800, Douglas Otis wrote:
Path Registration schemes are antithetical to the freedoms provides by
Personally, I'm quite tired of hearing path registration bashing in
venues that are supposed to be discussing other topics.
Can we please declare a scope violation for this mailing list, and
return to discussion of mail signature work, for transit validation?
This was about what is needed to augment digital signatures. I do see a
need for augmentation, but I excluded a category with some
justifications. Either the scope completely rules out how digital
signature protection is to be augmented, or it seems to be a topic
difficult to quell.
There is ongoing discussion regarding replay attacks and potential
benefits found coupling this scheme with other protections. This
problem is not new and exists with systems that use just the IP address
spoofed by way of asymmetric routing. There is also an additional need
to protect the network, not provided by digital signatures.
The synergy of digital signatures and IP based protections like CSV can
be found with both providing an authenticated name suitable for
reputation. Can a reputation system couple the name provided by a
digital signature with that provided by an IP method? Will this
augmentation offer the solutions needed to protect the network and
resolve other potential sources of abuse? Should this entire topic be
excluded from discussion?
-Doug