RE: Conclusion: 6MAN Adoption call on draft-rafiee-6man-ssas-07

["Hosnieh Rafiee" <[e-mail]>]

I do not accept the chair arguments since this draft have its own supporters
in the mailing list and I do not see this decision a fair decision . We all
know that we need local security and I also discussed about how this draft
can help to faster deploy SeND . I addressed all the comments I received
during the call and seriously cannot accept the result.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rafiee-6man-local-security 



-----------smile----------
Hosnieh
… success is a journey, not a destination….
You cannot change your destination overnight, but you can change your
direction ... Focus on the journey



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6 [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Alexandru Petrescu
> Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 4:25 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Conclusion: 6MAN Adoption call on draft-rafiee-6man-ssas-07
> 
> Le 15/01/2014 09:03, Ole Troan a écrit :
> > All,
> >
> > Title:       A Simple Secure Addressing Scheme for IPv6
> > AutoConfiguration (SSAS) Draft:      draft-rafiee-6man-ssas-07 Type:
> > Working group Adoption call Last call: 2013-11-19 - 2013-11-26 (but in
> > practice until now)
> >
> > Number of messages on thread: 75 Support for adoption: No consensus
> >
> > The chairs have after much deliberation and discussion with the AD,
> > decided that there is no consensus to adopt the draft. This is based
> > on the technical concerns raised during the adoption call, and the
> > deployment situation of SEND. Issues have been raised regarding the
> > proposed CGA algorithm that we don’t see clear answers to. While we
> > recognize that the problem of address spoofing and authentication on
> > IPv6 links is an important to solve, we do not see a consensus that
> > the proposed solution will significantly change the current SEND
> > deployment situation. We do not believe the working group understands
> > why SEND is not deployed. If that is because the users do not perceive
> > the problem as important, or if other solutions (e.g. on
> > L2) are being deployed.
> 
> The lack of SeND deployment could be an issue.
> 
> There are some areas where IP security is needed with link scope, on links
> which have little or no link-layer security.
> 
> One could also argue about the incompatibility of link1-layer security
with
> link2-layer security; or maybe the optimizations which could exist if a
> wifi/bluetooth sensor node could carry a single set of keys instead of 2.
> 
> To further dissect the question of SeND deployment one would need to
> quantify it.  One would do so first by some simple means such as checking
the
> availability of open-source implementations, and feature presence in linux
> and other kernels.
> 
> Alex
> 
> >
> > Overall, we think these the technical and deployment issues need to be
> > addressed before the working group could adopt this document.
> >
> > We would encourage the working group to continue work on address
> > spoofing and authentication on IPv6 links.
> >
> > Best regards, Bob and Ole
> >
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >  IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [e-mail] Administrative
> > Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------