Sent from my iPad
On 8 Dec 2013, at 21:27, "Brian E Carpenter"
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
On 09/12/2013 09:34, Stephen Farrell wrote:
On 12/08/2013 05:56 AM, l(_dot_)wood(_at_)surrey(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk wrote:
Stephen,
I've no idea what you think you mean when you say 'moving beyond
mandatory to implement'. My take is that encryption should never be
mandatory to implement.
MTI security is what's called for by BCP 61. Sometimes the MTI
security for a protocol will involve confidentiality, other
times (e.g. routing protocols) it has tended not to. So your
"take" is at odds with long standing IETF BCPs.
And just to repeat an earlier discussion:
MTI != MTIMC != MTEBD != MTD
Mandatory to Implement
Mandatory to Implement and Make Configurable
Mandatory to Enable by Default.
Mandatory to Deploy
These distinctions matter. The first three are requirements on
coders and vendors, that we can include in IETF standards.
Remembering of course that some platforms which wish
to use the Internet simply do not have the capability for
other than a very tiny very basic stack.
I always use the PIC and the Arduino to remind myself what the
lower end of the franchise looks like.
-Stewart
The last one is a requirement on operators, who will do what
they think best or what local laws force them to do.
Brian