Re: [abfab] AD review of draft-ietf-abfab-use-cases

On 07/23/2012 09:52 AM, Klaas Wierenga (kwiereng) wrote:
> 
> On Jul 20, 2012, at 9:31 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> 
> Stephen,
> 
>> On 07/20/2012 07:20 PM, Leif Johansson wrote:
>>>
>>>> 9. 3.9 seems quite far-fetched to me. Do you really expect sensors
>>>> to use gss-eap?
>>>
>>> I've seen a couple of examples of sensor nets built using wifi
>>> hardware - sensors don't have to be small "toaster-like" objects.
>>
>> Sure. I've built a number networks with nodes like that
>> myself, (e.g. [1] :-) Never needed nor considered anything
>> like abfab. Ours are v. small networks of course, but I've
>> also never heard anyone ask for what 3.9 is selling.
> 
> ehm, I am not sure it is THAT far fetched. 

Well, even slightly far-fetched isn't really a good
use-case is it?

But whatever;-)

S.

> I would argue that in large scale sensor networks with sensors of
different nature (in terms of processing power, memory, battery
consumption etc.) and connecting to untrusted networks you do want an
approach that has authentication agility, can operate in an environment
with delegated trust and that protects authentication credentials en
route…. I can think of different ways to achieve that, but I would not
dismiss the abfab approach out of hand….
> 
> Klaas
> 
>>
>> But like I said, its a comment that the wg can take or
>> leave, before or during IETF LC.
>>
>> S.
>>
>> [1] http://extremecom2012.ee.ethz.ch/papers/6-extremecom2012-Arkko.pdf
>>
>>>
>>> 	Cheers Leif
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> abfab mailing list
>>> abfab@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/abfab
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> abfab mailing list
>> abfab@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/abfab
> 