IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Wed, 15 September 2010 23:39 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 0F3633A6999; Wed, 15 Sep 2010 16:39:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.433
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.433 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.166, 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 j5mPMTGLmsXQ; Wed, 15 Sep 2010 16:39:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og127.obsmtp.com (exprod7og127.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.210]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18D663A6AAB; Wed, 15 Sep 2010 16:39:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from source ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob127.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTJFZT4R8rJvss+quTXSPG9fvv8pbHgth@postini.com; Wed, 15 Sep 2010 16:40:07 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 7079C1B82A2; Wed, 15 Sep 2010 16:39:59 -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; Wed, 15 Sep 2010 16:39:58 -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: <BF345F63074F8040B58C00A186FCA57F1F6826E5AE@NALASEXMB04.na.qualcomm.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 19:39:54 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <31F050D1-8294-442F-B5B5-305772690BD3@nominum.com>
References: <21C043C9-FE72-44F4-97A9-4684384F013D@gmail.com> <57452427-8824-4736-A8EF-022B3157935A@nominum.com> <20100915000842.667d28ae@it-sudparis.eu> <A19EC513-6C71-467C-A447-83C5FE600BC2@nominum.com> <BF345F63074F8040B58C00A186FCA57F1F6826E5AE@NALASEXMB04.na.qualcomm.com>
To: "Laganier, Julien" <julienl@qualcomm.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org Group" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, cga-ext@ietf.org, Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.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: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 23:39:53 -0000

On Sep 15, 2010, at 11:56 AM, Laganier, Julien wrote:
> When Sec is set to 1 the computational load of #2 seems to be in the same order of magnitude as for #1, which does not necessarily means that offloading is useless as #1 might not need to be done by the constrained device itself (e.g., it's been offload to someone else, and result is stored on a smartcard.)
> 
> That being set I have not been convinced yet that there's a real world use case for Sec values higher than zero.
> 
> HTH,

This does help, thanks.   I continue to think that the DHCP server is not a good place to offload the work, but I see the logic in wanting to do it, anyway, so I withdraw my objection.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email