Re: [dhcwg] *DRAFT* dhc WG agenda

Hi, Jari,

Please see my reply in lines.

Regards, Sheng

> You are right about how the charter text is written. However, I 
> have 
> been interpreting this a bit more broadly.
> 
> The other side is that the DHC charter also has a security item.

I guess we can have discussions in both WGs and see how it is going. In
CSI WG, we may focus on how CGA should be configured/generated in DHCP
environment; at the same time, in DHC WG,we may focus on more how DHCP
should be extended to adopt CGA.

> In any case, I do not think we can jump to solutions that involve 
> CGAs 
> without first doing the groundwork: what are the possible 
> approaches to 
> using CGAs in the conjunction of DHCP? Its hard to separate the use 
> of 
> CGA addresses in DHCP from the benefits to protecting the DHCP 
> process.

Between CGA and DHCP, there are actually two directions: a) using DHCP
to serve/enable the generation/usage of CGA on host, this should be the
work content of CSI; b) using CGA to serve the security of DHCP, this is
mainly about extend DHCP with new options, it should be work item of DHC.

> Please ask for the CSI slot as well and see where the discussion 
> takes us.

I did request a time slot in CSI to talk about the above a) point. I can
mention above b) point in my talk and clarify the different. Discussions
in both WG are useful to take these work forward.

Best regards,

Sheng

> JiangSheng 66104 wrote:
> > Hi, Jari,
> >
> > Yes, there is a DHCP relevant chartered item in CSI work group as I
> > quate below. However, it is quite different from this draft. The 
> chartered> item in CSI is mainly about how to use CGA in DHCP-
> managed networks. It is
> > covered by my another draft:
> > www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jiang-sendcgaext-cga-config-
> 02.txt>
> > The current CSI charter does not cover securing DHCP with CGA. 
> That's why I
> > submit this draft to DHC group. It is mainly adopting CGA to 
> serve DHCP
> > for security purpose. It is extension of DHCP, not extension of 
> CGA. I think
> > it is better to do this work in DHC WG rather than CSI. Based on 
> the above
> > understanding, I did not request a time slot in CSI
> >
> > "Develop an informational document analysing different approaches to
> > allow SeND and CGAs to be used in conjunction with DHCP, and making
> > recommendations on which are the best suited. Recharter based on the
> > result of the analysis."
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Sheng
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
> > Date: Friday, July 25, 2008 8:28 pm
> > Subject: Re: [dhcwg] *DRAFT* dhc WG agenda
> >
> >   
> >>> Secure DHCPv6 using CGA                         S. Jiang        
> 
> >>>       
> >> 10 
> >>     
> >>> minutes
> >>>   <draft-jiang-dhc-Secure-DHCPv6-00>
> >>>   Initial WG review; accept as WG work item?
> >>>       
> >> Note that we have another WG, CSI, whose charter has a work item 
> on 
> >> securing DHCP with CGA. Or to be more exact, producing first a 
> >> design 
> >> analysis before actually picking a solution.
> >>
> >> As a result, I don't think we want to adopt this document in the 
> >> DHC WG.
> >>
> >> But don't take this as a suggestion to avoid the discussion! The 
> >> discussion on the list has been useful, and we should also talk 
> >> about it 
> >> in the meeting. Has a slot been requested from CSI?
> >>
> >> Jari
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> dhcwg mailing list
> >> dhcwg@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
> >>
> >>     
> >
> >
> >   
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg