Re: [Anima] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on charter-ietf-anima-00-15: (with COMMENT)

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

On 31/10/14 00:02, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 31/10/2014 02:59, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> ...
>> I support Ted's block (I think:-).  I suspect that this will be sorted
>> out ok by the WG if it can be, but I'd also like some better clarity
>> on how the security bootstrapping here and in homenet are
>> related/differ.
> 
> IMHO understanding that (and where draft-ietf-netconf-zerotouch
> fits in) is part of the first order of business of the WG. I don't
> think we can resolve it without more technical analysis.

Agreed. My remaining, but for-now-ignorable concern relates to
the current wording which sort-of tells anima to re-use homenet
work in this space - I think it's likely different solutions
for security bootstrapping will be needed and so we ought not end
up trying to stop work on one such just because another exists,
if the use-cases/environments are in reality sufficiently
different. I'll try work with Benoit to suggest some better words
but do agree that what's really needed is the detailed analysis
which needs both WGs doing work and isn't a thing to try fix in
either charter.

S.


> 
>     Brian
>