Subject: [Isms] tmsm issue #8: MPSP vs SMSP

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 16:48:26 +0200

Hi,

I just ran into the following question and so I am posting it as a
new issue:

  The ID right now uses the term "message processing security processor"
  (MPSP) to refer to the piece which does security processing in the
  security subsystem. This somehow sounds like a misnomer. Should this
  not be the "security model security processor" (SMSP)?

  This way, we would device a "transport mapping security model" into
  the two pieces

  TMSP - transport mapping security processor
  SMSP - security model security processor

  since the message processing model should actually not be involed
  in all this.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany

_______________________________________________
Isms mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isms

---

From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 11:59:26 -0400

Hi,

If that is the approach we want to take, I can live with it.

Note that I agree that "the message processing model **should**
actually not be involved", but I am not convinced that in practice
this is true. Of course, no implementation actually follows this
design closely anyway, so in practice the point is unimportant.

dbh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 10:48 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Isms] tmsm issue #8: MPSP vs SMSP
> 
> 
> Hi,
>

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 19:51:06 +0200

> design closely anyway, so in practice the point is unimportant.

In practice, everything is different. But in our architectural model,
the security processing clearly is the job of the security model and
not of the message processing model.

/js