Subject: [CGA-EXT] [Fwd: Next steps on CSI after IETF71]

From: marcelo bagnulo <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 23:20:31 +0100

Hi,

these are the next steps for the items discussed in the meeting.
let us know if you have comments.

Regards, Gabriel and marcelo

Proxy SND Problem Statement
draft-daley-send-spnd-prob-02

One more version of the draft addressing comments in the meeting and 
then we will ask for adoption
The new version should address Dave Thaler comments about the different 
scenarios, anycast case to be studied in more depth, multicast is out of 
scope, may be kept just to mention what is not covered by the solutions 
space

Certificate profiles and Management
Initial work being done, if more people is interested, join the team

DHCPv6 Delegation of Certificates Option
draft-popoviciu-dhc-certificate-opt-01.txt
C. Popoviciu, R. Droms, E. Levy-Abegnoli - 15 min

WG to read the draft and comment

Hash Threat Analysis for SeND and Send Crypto Agility
A. Kukec, S. Jiang, S. Krishnan - 20 min
Authors to produce a draft including a proposal n how to encode hash 
agility. If the proposal is adopted, this will be part of RFC3971 update

8. Update for RFC3971: support in SEND for non-CGA addresses
E. Levy-Abegnoli

Not clear how to deal with this, more disucssion is needed.
What is clear is that something is needed in this space, since the the 
original rfc3971 is incomplete in this area

9. Public key algortihm agility in SeND
S. Shuo
We expect two things: a draft on how to support ECC in SeND and CGAs, 
and a proposal on how to support PK agility in SeND and CGAs to be 
uncluded in the rfc3971/2 update
People interested in working on this should contact the chairs

_______________________________________________
CGA-EXT mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cga-ext

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 20:51:49 -0400

Hi Marcelo and Gabriel,
   What about draft-krishnan-cgaext-proxy-send?

Thanks
Suresh

---

From: marcelo bagnulo <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 10:07:30 +0100

Hi Suresh,

The next steps on the proxy send solution is to finnish the pb statement 
and we can also in parallel evaluate different solutions. However at 
this point, there are several solutions (at least two were presented in 
the meeting) so it is not clear to us what is what the WG wants to do 
with this.
So, the position at this point is to keep the discussion and see how it 
evolves, makes sense?

regards, marcelo

Suresh Krishnan escribió:
>> The new version should address Dave Thaler comments about the 
>> different scenarios, anycast case to be studied in more depth, 
>> multicast is out of scope, may be kept just to mention what is not 
>> covered by the solutions space
>>
>> What is clear is that something is needed in this space, since the 
>> the original rfc3971 is incomplete in this area
>>

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 10:36:12 -0400

Hi Marcelo,
   Fair enough.

Cheers
Suresh

---

From: Greg Daley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:36:56 +1100

Hi Marcelo,

Just to clarify,for the problem statment:

Can I take it that no multicast is to be covered in the problem statement, other than 
those issues referenced through RFC4389, that are also required to get 
unsecured ND proxying to work?

Greg Daley

> Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 23:20:31 +0100
> From: [email-masked]
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [CGA-EXT] [Fwd: Next steps on CSI after IETF71]
> 
> Hi,
> 

_________________________________________________________________
Get MOTORAZR MAXX V6 now $249 on Next G™ Pre-Paid
http://clk.atdmt.com/OAT/go/nnmsntel0690000034oat/direct/01/

---

From: marcelo bagnulo <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:34:37 +0100

Hi Greg,

Dave Thaler made the following comment in the meeting:
Anycast is important, multicast isn't, because anycast is like a
normal address so it's important for the problem statement, multicast
doesn't belong in there
Good to have high level recognition of the issues even if we don't
implement it, documenting is good

So, it is up to the WG to decide what to do with this, but it seems 
clear to me that we are not chartered to solve the multicast problem, so 
no solution work will be done at this stage amd w.r.t. the problem 
statement, we should mention something, but essnetially, we should state 
that we are not addressing this problem and maybe explain why this is 
different problem that cannot be addressed in principle with the same 
tools, makes sense?

regards, marcelo

Greg Daley escribió:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Click here Get MOTORAZR MAXX V6 now $249 on Next G™ Pre-Paid 
> <http://clk.atdmt.com/OAT/go/nnmsntel0690000034oat/direct/01/>