Re: [CGA-EXT] [Fwd: Next steps on CSI after IETF71]

Hi Greg,

Dave Thaler made the following comment in the meeting:
Anycast is important, multicast isn't, because anycast is like a
normal address so it's important for the problem statement, multicast
doesn't belong in there
Good to have high level recognition of the issues even if we don't
implement it, documenting is good

So, it is up to the WG to decide what to do with this, but it seems 
clear to me that we are not chartered to solve the multicast problem, so 
no solution work will be done at this stage amd w.r.t. the problem 
statement, we should mention something, but essnetially, we should state 
that we are not addressing this problem and maybe explain why this is 
different problem that cannot be addressed in principle with the same 
tools, makes sense?

regards, marcelo

Greg Daley escribió:
> Hi Marcelo,
>
> Just to clarify,for the problem statment:
>
> Can I take it that no multicast is to be covered in the problem 
> statement, other than
> those issues referenced through RFC4389, that are also required to get
> unsecured ND proxying to work?
>
> Greg Daley
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 23:20:31 +0100
> > From: marcelo@it.uc3m.es
> > To: cga-ext@ietf.org
> > Subject: [CGA-EXT] [Fwd: Next steps on CSI after IETF71]
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > these are the next steps for the items discussed in the meeting.
> > let us know if you have comments.
> >
> > Regards, Gabriel and marcelo
> >
> > Proxy SND Problem Statement
> > draft-daley-send-spnd-prob-02
> >
> > One more version of the draft addressing comments in the meeting and
> > then we will ask for adoption
> > The new version should address Dave Thaler comments about the different
> > scenarios, anycast case to be studied in more depth, multicast is 
> out of
> > scope, may be kept just to mention what is not covered by the solutions
> > space
> >
> > Certificate profiles and Management
> > Initial work being done, if more people is interested, join the team
> >
> > DHCPv6 Delegation of Certificates Option
> > draft-popoviciu-dhc-certificate-opt-01.txt
> > C. Popoviciu, R. Droms, E. Levy-Abegnoli - 15 min
> >
> > WG to read the draft and comment
> >
> > Hash Threat Analysis for SeND and Send Crypto Agility
> > A. Kukec, S. Jiang, S. Krishnan - 20 min
> > Authors to produce a draft including a proposal n how to encode hash
> > agility. If the proposal is adopted, this will be part of RFC3971 update
> >
> >
> > 8. Update for RFC3971: support in SEND for non-CGA addresses
> > E. Levy-Abegnoli
> >
> > Not clear how to deal with this, more disucssion is needed.
> > What is clear is that something is needed in this space, since the the
> > original rfc3971 is incomplete in this area
> >
> > 9. Public key algortihm agility in SeND
> > S. Shuo
> > We expect two things: a draft on how to support ECC in SeND and CGAs,
> > and a proposal on how to support PK agility in SeND and CGAs to be
> > uncluded in the rfc3971/2 update
> > People interested in working on this should contact the chairs
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CGA-EXT mailing list
> > CGA-EXT@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cga-ext
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Click here Get MOTORAZR MAXX V6 now $249 on Next G™ Pre-Paid 
> <http://clk.atdmt.com/OAT/go/nnmsntel0690000034oat/direct/01/>

_______________________________________________
CGA-EXT mailing list
CGA-EXT@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cga-ext