On 09/12/2013 09:34, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
> On 12/08/2013 05:56 AM, l.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxx 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.
The last one is a requirement on operators, who will do what
they think best or what local laws force them to do.
Brian