Re: [Lake] WG process beyond requirements

[Joel Höglund <[e-mail]>]

Hi!

We at the RISE security lab are working with key management solutions
related to the work done in LAKE, and we are interested in progress in the
area. Hence we support Göran Selander's wish to proceed, with co-operation,
but without delaying the upcoming milestone.

Best Regards

Joel Höglund


> On 2020-01-28, 15:02, "Göran Selander" <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     Sorry for the slow response.
>
>     On 2020-01-24, 21:34, "Lake on behalf of Stephen Farrell" <
> [e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>         your suggestion above seems a bit
>         too much like asking for a competition in March - my guess
>         is that that could be counterproductive in that it'd be
>         likely to cause the set of WG participants to split into
>         groups supporting one proposal or another and make those
>         groups antagonistic towards each others' proposals.
>
>         So, I'd hope we can find something that works, doesn't
>         slow us down, but maintains the spirit of co-operation
>         we've seen so far in the WG.
>
>     I also would like to maintain the good collaboration. Looking at the
> charter, the next milestone is:
>
>     May 2020    Adopt solution document or defer to existing external
> solution document
>
>     If we can reach this milestone in a good spirit of co-operation, that
> would be grand. But we need to reach it even if that isn't possible. A much
> worse outcome would be that we delay this milestone. For those of us who
> are working on solutions in this space, this milestone creates a large
> uncertainty as to what the solution will look like and that has a huge
> impact on the work. So, we definitely don't want to delay this milestone.
>
>     Here is how I see the alternatives for the milestone. As we don't have
> the time frame for a clean slate approach, we need to start with an
> existing protocol. If only one candidate is put forth, then this milestone
> is easy. If there are more than one candidate, the only way I can think of
> to make a decision is to compare them side by side using at least
> requirement compliance and message sizes as evaluation parameters. In order
> to reach the milestone before IETF 108, we'd like to start analyzing the
> alternatives at IETF 107. Even if we many get comments on the requirements
> in WGLC, I think we should reserve time at IETF 107 to start discussing the
> solution candidate(s) and how to reach the milestone. As mentioned
> previously, some of the detailed requirements actually need to be analysed
> in the context of the solution.
>
>     Göran
>
>
>
>
>
>