Thread Links			Date Links
Thread Prev	Thread Next	Thread Index	Date Prev	Date Next	Date Index

Re: [LinkSec] Teleconf notes 3/25/03

To: stds-802-linksec@ieee.org
Subject: Re: [LinkSec] Teleconf notes 3/25/03
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:22:50 -0500
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20030327170002.063a00f0@mira-sjcm-3.cisco.com>
Sender: owner-stds-802-linksec@majordomo.ieee.org


I could not attend the teleconference, but I would like to respond to this 
question raised in the notes.

>PFS = perfect forward security.  Is it needed?

I think that this is not a requirement.  I do not think that we need the 
computational burden.

Is anyone advocating it?

Russ

References:
- [LinkSec] Teleconf notes 3/25/03
  - From: Allyn Romanow <allyn@cisco.com>

Prev by Date: [LinkSec] Call tomorrow: architecture model
Next by Date: [LinkSec] Teleconf notes 3/25/03
Prev by thread: [LinkSec] Teleconf notes 3/25/03
Next by thread: [LinkSec] Bridge Number Change
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread