Re: [lisp] draft-farinacci-lisp-crypto-01 - Call for WG Adoption

Stephen Farrell <> Thu, 04 December 2014 21:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C836E1A1AA0 for <>; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 13:54:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nP0gjG3pXTvg for <>; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 13:54:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C59A1A1F02 for <>; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 13:54:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C9E6BF00; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 21:54:33 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9a1nz3g-zv1C; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 21:54:31 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [] (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 775C0BEFF; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 21:54:31 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 21:54:29 +0000
From: Stephen Farrell <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dino Farinacci <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: Damien Saucez <>, LISP mailing list list <>
Subject: Re: [lisp] draft-farinacci-lisp-crypto-01 - Call for WG Adoption
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 21:54:38 -0000

On 04/12/14 16:13, Dino Farinacci wrote:
>> I like that you're doing this work so am supportive. I think
> Yes, we have included you guys from the get-go, per Joel's good
> suggestion. Your expertise was useful to make us understand where the
> state of the art in cryptography is.
>> it'd be good to try get some security folks to review before
> Brian Weis have been involved but we will also call on you guys. My
> plan is to get comments from Brian, wait for the two week period to
> end, so I can update the draft and change name to draft-ietf-lisp.
> And then, the first rev of the working group draft will reflect the
> solicitation of comments from you folks.
>> folks get too far in implementations, but I'm not sure when that'd
>> be. But feel free to hassle me or Kathleen and we can try get that
>> done when you think it's the right time, i.e.
> Give us a few weeks and when Brian can get to commenting
> draft-farinacci-lisp-crypto-01.
>> just before folks start coding or making hard to change design 
>> decisions.
> Too late. ;-)  But then again, that is the only way to build a good
> draft.

Sorry not sure what you mean by "too late"? If you mean you've
written early code, that's great. If you mean that it's too
late to get any significant changes compared to this -01 then
that'd not be at all ok.

And to be clear, by "significant change," I don't mean changing
from say DH to RSA key transport which'd be a bad plan, but more
like whether integer or ECDH ought be first up, whether to wait
on CFRG for new curves, maybe ways of encoding crypto parameters
etc. Those kinds of change ought be possible at this point IMO
(if the WG have rough consensus for 'em of course.)


>> Thanks, S.
>> PS: the above is based on the saag presentation Dino did and a very
>> quick scan of the document, I've not read it in detail yet.
> Right, we are in sync.
> Thanks for the support, Dino
>> On 04/12/14 11:27, Luigi Iannone wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>> During the 91st IETF authors of the
>>> draft-farinacci-lisp-crypto-01 
>>> [] 
>>> asked for WG adoption. Meeting participants expressed consensus
>>> on adoption.
>>> This message begins the two weeks call for WG adoption to confirm
>>> the meeting outcome. The call ends on  December 19th 2014.
>>> Please respond to the LISP mailing list with any statements of
>>> approval or disapproval.
>>> Recall that:
>>> - This is not WG Last Call. The document is not final, and the WG
>>> is expected to modify the document’s content until there is WG
>>> consensus that the content is solid. Therefore, please don’t
>>> oppose adoption just because you want to see changes to its
>>> content.
>>> - If you have objections to adoption of the document, please
>>> state your reasons why, and explain what it would take to address
>>> your concerns.
>>> - If you have issues with the content, by all means raise those
>>> issues and we can begin a dialog about how best to address them.
>>> Luigi and Joel
>>> _______________________________________________ lisp mailing
>>> list
>> _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list