[Sls-slp] Security, NGU and New TC services and there effect on COP-1
Howard.Weiss at cobham.com
Thu Oct 15 14:51:00 UTC 2009
Where we disagree is that the COP isn't "broken" if you put the security
afterwards and the security layer fails its checks. This comes back to
where the COP/FARM has finished its job (to guarantee delivery of
complete in sequence, error free commands). Our disagreement was that I
believe that the COP has finished when it hands the command to the next
process (whatever that is) - in this example it is the security layer.
You believe that the COP has not completing its job correctly if the
next process or processes throws the command away for another failure -
in this case if the security has failed.
This is analogous to IPSec being above the link and network (IP) layers.
While IP does not guarantee in-order delivery it does (sort of)
guarantee that the packet isn't clobbered (based on its weak checksum).
But IP is supposed to simply hand-of what it thinks is a good packet to
IPSec for security processing. IP washes its (virtual) hands of the
packet and it becomes IPSec's responsibility to pass it up to the next
layer as "good" to to send it to the bit-bucket because it didn't pass
SPARTA National Security Sector
Cobham Analytic Solutions
T: 443 430 8089
F: 443 430 8238
C: 410 261 1479
howard.weiss at cobham.com
SPARTA, Inc., dba Cobham Analytic Solutions, 7110 Samuel Morse Dr.,
Columbia MD 21046 www.sparta.com <http://www.sparta.com/>
Please consider the environment before printing this email
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the SLS-SLP