Re: [hiaps] Side meeting

🔓Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com> Fri, 14 November 2014 03:29 UTC

Return-Path: <dwing@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: hiaps@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hiaps@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5E2A1A6EE7 for <hiaps@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 19:29:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.795
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.795 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.594, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 WxuHuxqGF82K for <hiaps@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 19:29:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B40881A6EF2 for <hiaps@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 19:29:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=866; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1415935754; x=1417145354; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=B3ULWmK1g0zWVDxRm8n4RlRpIUgu629+Lk88nY2DvFQ=; b=WLOMQbV0NlOTA9YBO79vcoL/PKqcJBTXlrV9MMMgzBsHIZSR/tcv69+m lX3BK/Z3fLc+qtDKJ3H3OCpt/iNt5QD5pvuE3xjyZkIyTS06PF/oK3SEq lzslq0uPHSs0rhD94PEYOcbifZTWVYw7wjys8gjgrtX6oTXZ2Ge2F9FDQ Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ag4FAFR2ZVStJV2Q/2dsb2JhbABbgw5VWc0Fh04CgSEWAQEBAQF9hAMBAQMBOj8FCwtGITYZG4gRAwkJDcoHDYZYAQEBAQEBAQMBAQEBAQEBFwSOZIFmJTMHFoMXgR4FlyKFF4ITkAWGdYQgGTABgQWBRQEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,382,1413244800"; d="scan'208";a="96514925"
Received: from rcdn-core-8.cisco.com ([173.37.93.144]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Nov 2014 03:29:13 +0000
Received: from sjc-vpn2-249.cisco.com (sjc-vpn2-249.cisco.com [10.21.112.249]) by rcdn-core-8.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id sAE3T9DP024698 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 14 Nov 2014 03:29:10 GMT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: 🔓Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC8QAcfXuFLdpCrmebfpo=9m0vFYWA1QGgYe_1+H3HW3ZnQoxg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 17:29:07 -1000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A7B344F1-916E-45F4-9B4D-A7A9EE40DAB8@cisco.com>
References: <CAC8QAcfXuFLdpCrmebfpo=9m0vFYWA1QGgYe_1+H3HW3ZnQoxg@mail.gmail.com>
To: sarikaya@ieee.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hiaps/Iyxm70pf5LHoxJ5Ta2eeRt33fgg
Cc: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>, "hiaps@ietf.org" <hiaps@ietf.org>, Mohamed Boucadair <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>, Brandon Williams <brandon.williams@akamai.com>, "Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de" <Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de>
Subject: Re: [hiaps] Side meeting
X-BeenThere: hiaps@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Host Identification, Address and Prefix Sharing in Wi-Fi Access \(hiaps\)" <hiaps.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/hiaps>, <mailto:hiaps-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hiaps/>
List-Post: <mailto:hiaps@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hiaps-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hiaps>, <mailto:hiaps-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 03:29:15 -0000

On Nov 13, 2014, at 3:50 PM, Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> Regarding the side meeting, we had a chat with Dan Wing, Tiru, et al.
> It seems like host id/address activity should better direct itself
> towards out-of-band solutions rather than inband as discussed in RFC
> 6967.

RFC6967 describes an out-of-band mechanism in its Section 4.9, https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6967#section-4.9

-d

> Out-of-band solutions can avoid a lot of the issues IETF is concerned
> about and may give us an opportunity to do consensus oriented work.
> 
> Of course the applicability of such an out-of-band solution could be a
> bit limited but I think that the solution could be OK for most of the
> use cases we have.
> 
> So I wanted to start a discussion on this direction.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Behcet