Re: [CGA-EXT] proposed csi charter text

Hi again,

2007/12/28, marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>:
> Hi,
>
> El 28/12/2007, a las 16:35, Jean-Michel Combes escribió:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > sorry for the delayed reply.
> >
> > 2007/12/18, marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> the bof in vancouver was very successful and we got very good
> >> feedback from the AD and the IAB. so the next step is to agree on the
> >> changes on the charter that were suggested on the BOF.
> >>
> >> After discussing with the Ad and the chairs, we propose to include in
> >> the charter a new item on certificate management to provide cert
> >> profile, cert validation and cert porisioning.
> >>
> >> We think that the anycast case that was suggested is not strictly
> >> clear that is within the scope of our work, so we prefer not to
> >> mention it explicitly in the charter, while it is possible to
> >> evaluate if the proposed solutions do work with anycast and
> >> eventually recharter later to include this work.
> >>
> >
> > If we don't mention this case in the charter, there will be nothing
> > about it in the PS document and this one will have to be updated later
> > to integrate this case. As the problem with anycast addresses is, more
> > or less, the same with ProxyND, IHMO, it would be preferable to have
> > this case in the PS to avoid an update of it in the future.
> >
>
> but it is far from clear to me that the anycast case is similar to
> the one of proxynd and imho more analysis is needed
> so i would really prefer to charter this work as it is curently
> defined and if people are interested on the anycast case and we do
> the anlysis and it seems that it is a possible to deal with the
> anycast case with the sam tools, we can easily recharter to cover
> this case
>
> Moreover, there is a clear stage to do this, since we need to produce
> a problem statement for proxy send, so this would be a great moment
> to bring and discuss this issue and if during the proxy send pb
> statement disucssion we conclude that it would be ok to work on this
> we can try to recharter before starting the work on the acutal proxy
> send solution work
>
> would that be ok?

It's fine for me.

Best regards.

JMC.

>
> Regards, marcelo
>
>
> > [snip]
> >
> >>
> >> - Produce a problem statement document for Neighbor Discovery Proxies
> >>    and then specify standards-track SEND Extensions to support
> >> Neighbor
> >>    Discovery Proxies:  SEND protocol as currently defined in RFC 3971
> >>    lacks of support for ND Proxies defined in RFC 3775 and RFC 4389.
> >>    Extensions to the SEND protocol will be defined in order to
> >> provide
> >>    equivalent SEND security capabilities to ND Proxies.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > Best regards and happy new year.
> >
> > JMC.
>
>

_______________________________________________
CGA-EXT mailing list
CGA-EXT@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cga-ext