Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-02 - Respond by May 18

[神明達哉 <[e-mail]>]

At Thu, 8 May 2014 08:56:59 +0000,
Sheng Jiang <[e-mail]> wrote:

> In the common scenario that we expect, the leap of faith model is
> not deployed independent. In the deployment of secure DHCPv6 server,
> the server serves three types of clients: 1) full authenticated
> clients, 2) clients trusted by leap of faith model, 3)
> un-authenticated clients. Hence, the clients are in different class
> for limited resource assignment and access priority. It provides
> fine-grained client management.

I'm afraid we're on different pages...the above explanation doesn't
answer my questions:

> >I don't think my main point is MUST vs MAY.  It's about a more
> >general point of authenticating messages from clients to servers:
> >
> >- whether we really need (public key) authentication in that
> >  direction, and if we do, why
> >
> >- also if we do, what's the commonly expected model of "trust anchor":
> >  leap of faith or use of CA or something else, and if it's more
> >  likely to be a weaker model like leap of faith (I suspect so, for
> >  the direction of clients to servers), whether the motivation (1st
> >  bullet) is worth the weaker security
> >
> >- and, if it's more likely to rely on leap of faith, what kind of
> >  consideration is needed

If this is because I was not clear enough, I have no idea how I can
clarify my questions further.  As I said in my very first comment on
the draft, I don't have a strong position on whether to advance the
draft, so I guess I should simply drop these points, especially if
others in the wg don't see these an issue.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya