IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] Moving SeDHCPv6 forward

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Sat, 21 March 2015 17:37 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDB0B1A1A55 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 21 Mar 2015 10:37:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.61
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.61 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9yn-_1IjBS-x for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 21 Mar 2015 10:37:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com [64.89.234.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 94BF41A0092 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 21 Mar 2015 10:37:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-04.win.nominum.com [64.89.235.67]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 78420DA00C0; Sat, 21 Mar 2015 17:37:55 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [10.0.20.107] (71.233.43.215) by CAS-04.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.224.2; Sat, 21 Mar 2015 10:37:55 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJE_bqfv2PbMx=yx+TbxAfWpsDG7FJKrmVdR5Z2n-1FnG3+B9A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2015 13:37:50 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <BACF0B6D-89AE-4BF4-9B70-ABF5522560DD@nominum.com>
References: <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B923B05E058@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com> <CAJE_bqdPR-VScm02mx=nRm_j5Bv6+TF6QR=+=YSSrvZ5c9zTJg@mail.gmail.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832E1F673@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CAJE_bqeBFH5UBMgR--64ngri6h32d5x4Un0ze=d6=_s-oGj9yA@mail.gmail.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832E203B5@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CAJE_bqfdYyyLgYBbUYNA=Wh9OTwdf377=bLReVfyhD1wQscX2g@mail.gmail.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832E20446@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <10AFB9D0-E440-4243-9FBE-87E62CB6ED05@nominum.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832E20478@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <A24B47A0-7662-4E0C-B296-C9904013A5E1@nominum.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832E21DA3@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <F4EEEB91-CE04-40E4-9BB0-ED2C67F3347A@nominum.com> <15234.1426880481@perseus.noi.kre.to> <CAJE_bqfcrZRnwuMkitDgVhoEV_Y0KRx5qUDdN4JudFX4UnhK4w@mail.gmail.com> <18525.1426905624@perseus.noi.kre.to> <CAJE_bqfv2PbMx=yx+TbxAfWpsDG7FJKrmVdR5Z2n-1FnG3+B9A@mail.gmail.com>
To: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-Originating-IP: [71.233.43.215]
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/klxFV-n6og2oEj5YkknaEGpzQVc>
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, Robert Elz <kre@munnari.oz.au>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Moving SeDHCPv6 forward
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2015 17:37:57 -0000

On Mar 21, 2015, at 1:36 PM, 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> wrote:
> since the goal of sedhcpv6 is to "make it easier to deploy
> DHCPv6 authentication" (from Section 4 of the 08 version), this
> process will have to be (able to be) done with less or ideally no
> human intervention, and it will have to be scalable for arbitrary
> number of individual clients (or their users).

OK, but deploying shared secrets with no human intervention is hard.   Deploying public keys is easier.

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status