Re: [CGA-EXT] [dhcwg] Follow up request for review of draft-ietf-csi-dhcpv6-cga-ps

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Tue, 14 September 2010 23:06 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: cga-ext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cga-ext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B66DA3A6A22; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 16:06:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.427
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.427 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.172, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oQp3WVm8Rl7S; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 16:06:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og105.obsmtp.com (exprod7og105.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.163]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EBA03A67FF; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 16:06:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from source ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob105.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTJAADE4hnIKUsx2AIT/o2HaOXqmyq5bI@postini.com; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 16:06:55 PDT
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (webmail.nominum.com [64.89.228.50]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "webmail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 393661B829C; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 16:06:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vpna-148.vpn.nominum.com (64.89.227.148) by exchange-01.win.nominum.com (64.89.228.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.176.0; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 16:06:51 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <20100915000842.667d28ae@it-sudparis.eu>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 19:06:46 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <A19EC513-6C71-467C-A447-83C5FE600BC2@nominum.com>
References: <21C043C9-FE72-44F4-97A9-4684384F013D@gmail.com> <57452427-8824-4736-A8EF-022B3157935A@nominum.com> <20100915000842.667d28ae@it-sudparis.eu>
To: Tony Cheneau <tony.cheneau@it-sudparis.eu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org Group" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "cga-ext@ietf.org" <cga-ext@ietf.org>, Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>, "Ralph@core3.amsl.com" <Ralph@core3.amsl.com>
Subject: Re: [CGA-EXT] [dhcwg] Follow up request for review of draft-ietf-csi-dhcpv6-cga-ps
X-BeenThere: cga-ext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: CGA and SeND Extensions <cga-ext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cga-ext>, <mailto:cga-ext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cga-ext>
List-Post: <mailto:cga-ext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cga-ext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cga-ext>, <mailto:cga-ext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 23:06:30 -0000

On Sep 14, 2010, at 6:08 PM, Tony Cheneau wrote:
> So, as long as the public/private key are generated on the node, I
> would say that you will not need to communicate the private key (in
> clear or in a ciphered form).

Actually, this is clear as mud to me.   What is the big compute job that's being done on the server, then?   Can you point me to the RFC I should be reading that explains all this?   Sorry to be obtuse.   :'}