Subject: RE: [nemo] RO solution space - CA is Certificate Authority

From: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 18:58:48 +0200

Yes... OTOH, if there is a risk of a collision then we should change.
And that might be the case here. What about Correspondent Side Agent?
CSA also exists in France but I do not expect them to participate to our
drafts :)

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Thierry Ernst
>Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 5:28 PM
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [nemo] RO solution space - CA is Certificate Authority
>
>
>
>> >>>>>CA is established as Certificate Authority, it relates to IP and
>> >IPsec,>>>>it's in wide use in an area where I am looking.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Yes, we have the same argument among the authors, and I lost :).
>> >Our>>>conclusion is that the reader is smart enough to known which
CA
>> >is>>>referred to base on the context.
>
>Before been established as an acronym for "Certificate Authority" CA
was
>also established as the acronym of a Frenck bank (Credit Agricole) ;-)
>
>I don't think an acronym should be disqualified because of existing
>acronyms when the topics are different, otherwise this is a dead end.
>
>If you look around, there are a bunch of similar acronyms and I think
>people are clever enough to distinguish between the two particularly
>when you can simply instantiate them (write the term in full, only use
>the acronyms in un-ambiguous sentences)
>
>My 2 cents,
>Thierry

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 19:35:31 +0200

> CSA also exists in France but I do not expect them to participate to our

CSA Correspondent Side Agent is fine with me too, but sounds like it
can't be the CN itself, sounds like it must be on its side somewhere, no?

Alex

---

From: Masafumi Watari <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 19:32:34 +0900

> can't be the CN itself, sounds like it must be on its side somewhere, no?

I agree.  In that sense, the term Agent to me sounds more like a router
and not a host (as in HA/FA).  If we are to avoid CN, I would also
suggest PN: Peer Node or RN: Remote Node or something like that.

I could live with CE: Correspondent Entity too.

Just my thoughts.

watari

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 13:42:53 +0200

> suggest PN: Peer Node or RN: Remote Node or something like that.

Right, PN sounds better.

> I could live with CE: Correspondent Entity too.

Ok with CE too.  Maybe "Correspondent" is better because is akin to
Correspondent in "CN".

Alex

---

From: Fan Zhao <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 15:56:24 -0700 (PDT)

Dear all,

> > suggest PN: Peer Node or RN: Remote Node or something like that.
IMHO I think "agent" does not imply router or host, it totally
depends on how we are going to define it. In MIP4/6 (yes, a very
close field to NEMO) HA/FA is defined as a router, but there are
many terms like mobile agent, software agent in other fields.
Thus I think a clear definition
that CA could be either router or host should be ok from my side.

> Ok with CE too.  Maybe "Correspondent" is better because is akin to
If I recall correctly, there was a term "CE" (customer edge) in PPVPN
WG. So the fundamental problem is there is no
naming convention defined within IETF scope and in history, thus there
are conflicts between the new term to be defined and those already
defined in other WG or in history. So we can either just use CA and assume
it is within the context of NEMO or define explicitly NCA (NEMO
Correspondent Agent) with "NEMO" as a prefix to qualify CA.
I am basically ok with any term above.

Sincerely,
fan

---

From: "T.J. Kniveton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 01:39:14 +0300

> that CA could be either router or host should be ok from my side.

There hasn't been any more discussion on this topic, so I don't know  
what the resolution was. Just remember, an agent is defined as an  
entity that does something on behalf of someone else. So it would be  
quite rare for a CN to be an agent for itself. That is probably why  
Alexandru made the comment that an agent sounds more like a router  
than a host.

What do the authors want to do to resolve this naming question?

---

From: Chan-Wah Ng <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 10:34:09 +0800

> What do the authors want to do to resolve this naming question?

As far as i see, we have a few different alternatives:

- Correspondent Entity (CE)
- Peer Node/Entity (PN/PE)
- Remote Node/Entity (RN/RE)

I personally would go for CE, seeing as it resembles CN.  Base on all
posts in the ML, I see no strong position against using CE.  

So, I would use the term CE to replace CA if there is no strong
opposition from now til -01 is published.

/rgds
/cwng

---

From: "T.J. Kniveton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 20:29:10 +0300

> opposition from now til -01 is published.

My personal opinion:
I don't like using the word "entity". It is a synonym for "thing" and  
doesn't really add any meaning to a phrase. OTOH, I don't have any  
alternative that springs to mind.

TJ