Subject: [MSEC] MSEC arch v01, comments on section 3.1

From: George Gross <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 13:33:23 -0400 (EDT)

Hi,

my comments on the architecture section 3.1:

   Multicast data encrypted and/or authenticated by a sender should be

gmg> would like to suggest here: s/should/MUST/

   handled the same way by both centralized and distributed receivers,
   (as shown in Figure 1).

   The "Multicast Encapsulating Security Payload" [BCCR] provides the
   definition for Multicast ESP for data traffic. The "Multicast Source
   Authentication Transform Specification" [PCW] defines the use of the
   TESLA algorithm for source authentication in multicast.

gmg> are you saying that TESLA source authentication is a MUST? SHOULD? MAY?
gmg> how about mentioning asymmetric cipher digital signature as an alternative?

br,
	George

_______________________________________________
msec mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/msec

---

From: Brian Weis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:47:05 -0700

Hi George,

I'm not sure this document should have any MUSTs in it. As Thomas
clarified recently, it is intended to be published as an Informational
document rather than Standards-Track. The document is meant to define a
framework for multicast security rather than define requirements for
specific protocols or mechanisms. As such, we've avoided requirements
keywords in the document.

Thanks,
Brian 

-- 
Brian Weis
Strategic Cryptographic Development, ITD, Cisco Systems
Telephone: +1 408 526 4796
Email: [email-masked]