Subject: Re: [Capwap] Encryption Capabilities

From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 11:31:36 -0700

> Yes, DTLS provides a superset of security, but also triples 
> the computational requirements.  My point is that in many 
> cases, the subset of security offered by 11i encryption is sufficient.

At the expense of disallowing certain standard 802.11 functions from
being provided.

Pat Calhoun
CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit
Cisco Systems
_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap

Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap

---

From: Charles Clancy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 14:50:32 -0400

> At the expense of disallowing certain standard 802.11 functions from

... certainly, that's why like using DTLS, it would be optional.

I'm not trying to say we need to keep it.  I'm just trying to make sure 
everyone's aware of the feature it provides.  If implementors think 
getting rid of it is fine, then go for it.

Personally, I couldn't care less about computational complexity. 
Terminating 11i at the WTP and optionally using DTLS makes much more 
sense in the larger security paradigm.  Then everything's clean and modular.

--
t. charles clancy, ph.d.  |  [email-masked]  |  www.cs.umd.edu/~clancy