Re: [Lake] WG process beyond requirements

[Göran Selander <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Indeed, it seems we are concluding on the requirements. And it is not like we come out the requirements process with a completely new landscape. The current set doesn't seem like a big surprise to anyone, which is good.

As mentioned in the meeting, we must get going with the solution now for several reasons. Companies are waiting for a key exchange to deploy with OSCORE, and the process has already been very long. Earlier IESG input has been to not get stuck in requirements and to work on a solution in parallel. In fact, some of the remaining issues are better discussed in the context of a given protocol, for example, for the recent topic on what kind resumption to specify a comparison of message sizes between PSK-ECHDE and PSK-FS may be a necessary data point to make a decision. 

I think it is the right estimate of the charter milestones to not set aside too much time between WGLC of requirements and adoption or defering to existing solution. With this in mind we need to have all solution candidates on the table in Vancouver.

How about everyone that wants to propose a candidate solution gets a slot in Vancouver to present 
a) how the protocol complies with draft-ietf-lake-req
b) the message sizes using draft-ietf-lwig-security-protocol-comparison as a basis for comparison


Göran



On 2020-01-23, 16:56, "Lake on behalf of Stephen Farrell" <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:

    
    Hiya,
    
    (First - a reminder that we're not using today's virtual
    interim slot that would have been in <5 minutes:-)
    
    We've been making fairly good and harmonious progress
    on improving the text in the requirements draft [1] which
    is great. Our charter calls for us to not publish that
    as an RFC, so once we think we're ready (which is not
    today) we'll start a WGLC for the draft to establish
    whether we've gotten that to a point where we do have
    rough consensus on requirements.
    
    We'd like to ask the WG how people would like to proceed
    after that point, not to decide that right now, but
    mostly to get input and ideas and so we (as chairs) don't
    surprise anyone after we hopefully declare victory on the
    requirements in the not-too-distant future.
    
    So, your suggestions are welcome...
    
    Thanks,
    M&S.
    
    [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lake-reqs