P2P protocols (Re: Re: how to declare consensus when someone ignores con

--On 23. januar 2006 06:26 +0200 John Loughney <john(_dot_)loughney(_at_)kolumbus(_dot_)fi> 
wrote:
> > On 01/22/2006 22:27 PM, John Loughney allegedly wrote:
> > > Look at various peer-to-peer protocols as a good
> > > examples of things that people use everyday, but wouldn't stand a
> > > chance of getting an RFC.
> >
> > Why not?
> Now we're close to side veering off into process issues, but rather than
> going into that rat-hole, I'll just pose a question: do you think p2p
> protocol authors would have any motiviation to create a Security
> Considerations section that would pass IESG review?
let's veer off... this is much more fun than other current discussions :-)

Since a major problem for "illegal" P2P networks at the moment is dealing 
with content that is inserted maliciously (the file named "Britney Spears' 
latest hit" that says "THOU SHALT NOT STEAL" in a thunderous voice), I 
think they have a large motivation for workable security models...... and I 
suspect that the Security ADs would LOVE to see documented a security model 
that has been proved to work in that environment.
so I think this particular point is a red herring. Cost of participation 
and patience with process may be bigger obstacles.
                 Harald

pgp5ziD24mpok.pgp
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf