Hi Stan again,
Am 19.02.2016 um 15:35 schrieb Stan Ratliff <ratliffstan@xxxxxxxxx>:
Hi there!
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Lotte Steenbrink
<lotte.steenbrink@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Vicky, hi all,
<snip>
* ”However, since the sender of the RERR
message with erroneous information MAY be presumed to be either
malicious or broken, it is better that such routes not be used
anyway.”
To be honest, I don't really get what this sentence is trying to say.
I think it's a (pretty formal) way of saying "Since the guy sent you crap,
assume he's either busted, or he's trying to subvert the network, so don't
use the route." ;-)
OK - This is the *perfect* example of a discussion we should probably be
having on manet@xxxxxxxx. What I'd like to see is to take the text that Lotte
has already formatted, plus the text she proposes for clearing up encryption,
*and posting*, along with a short description of what we've done.
My discussion with Justin last night revealed a bit of a "chicken and egg"
scenario - with DLEP (and I suspect with AODVv2 as well), there's something
of a "I'm not going to review the document, because there's an error in the
document". That is, I couldn't get reviews & gather information on the DLEP
Security Considerations section, because there was an issue with the DLEP
Security Considerations...
Somebody has to "break the cycle" - so let us do it! We can post, along with
an email synopsis of this very thread, basically saying "OK gang, here's or
current best take - help us make it better."
Regards,
Stan
[snip]
