Subject: RE: [seamoby] Re: Last Call on draft-ietf-seamoby-context-transfe r-problem-stat-03.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 13:12:52 +0200

Hi Simon,

>       The compromise of only one of the network entities that contain
>       context may be sufficient to reduce the security of the whole
>       system, if for example the context includes encryption keying
>       material.  When the host moves from the compromised network
>       entity to a uncompromised network entity, the compromised
>       context may be used to decrypt the communication channel.  When
>       context transfer is not used, a compromise of only one network
>       entity only gives access to what that network entity can see.
>       This means that network entities must have similar physical
>       and software protection as the backend server.

I think that this is a good point.  I think that the last sentence 
may be a bit strong, since this document is only a problem statement.
Perhaps leaving the final statement out, but moving it to the
Context Transfer Requirements document might make more sense.

best regards,
John

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 12:50:14 +0100

> Context Transfer Requirements document might make more sense.

I agree, leaving the last sentence out is more appropriate.

/Simon