Re: [Lake] 1 week 2nd WGLC on requirements and scoping text

["Eduardo Ingles (UM)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Stephen,

I'm happy with this text.
I support the working group moving forward.

Regards,
Eduardo Inglés.

El 24/05/2020 a las 23:07, Stephen Farrell escribió:
> Hi all,
>
> First: my apologies for taking so long on this. (I got
> sidetracked by an unexpected project.)
>
> ISTM we have pretty good, if rough, consensus on enough of
> the text to proceed, but with one important part that needs
> checking. (See below.)
>
> I'd like to start a 1 week 2nd WGLC with the main focus
> being to establish whether we have rough consensus on the
> scoping text below. (Which can be see in context at [2].)
> That text was the main outcome of our virtual meeting last
> month.
>
> So, please send mail to the list saying if you are happy
> enough to proceed on this basis. If you are not, then I'd
> appreciate if you could suggest alternate text with as
> few changes as possible.
>
> This 2nd WGLC closes on June 1st. If I see rough
> consensus to proceed at that point, I'll plan to start a
> call for adoption for the edhoc draft. If not, we'll have
> to discuss how to proceed with our AD, as I think that
> would mean that the WG is very badly stuck.
>
> The scoping text added was:
>
>     As illustrated above, the setting is much more diverse
>     in terms of credentials and trust anchors than that of
>     the unconstrained web.  In order to deliver a timely
>     result, there is a need to initially focus on what is
>     considered most important at the time of writing: RPK
>     (by reference and value) and certificate by reference.
>     Information about validity of a certificate may be
>     omitted from the AKE if available over unconstrained
>     links.  The case of transporting certificate validation
>     information over the AKE may be specified in the initial
>     phase if there is a lightweight solution that matches
>     existing standards and tools.
>
>     A subsequent extension beyond the initial focus may be
>     inevitable to maintain a homogenous deployment without
>     having to implement a mix of AKE protocols, for example,
>     to support the migration path described above.  The AKE
>     needs to make clear the scope of cases analysed in the
>     initial phase, and that a new analysis is required for
>     additional cases.
>
> Thanks,
> Stephen.
>
> [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lake-reqs-03
> [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lake-reqs-03#section-2.2.1
>
>
-- 
Eduardo Inglés Sánchez
[e-mail]

Department of Information and Communication Engineering
Faculty of Computer Science
University of Murcia
30100 Murcia, Spain