[manet] RFC6622bis - a pointer to the datatracker

Thomas Heide Clausen <thomas@thomasclausen.org> Mon, 11 November 2013 06:50 UTC

Return-Path: <thomas@thomasclausen.org>
X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9687B21E80C8 for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Nov 2013 22:50:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.203
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9XHs9DMG9VIt for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Nov 2013 22:50:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B278F21E80C7 for <manet@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Nov 2013 22:50:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DE871C5B7B for <manet@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Nov 2013 22:50:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net
Received: from [10.121.3.165] (194.106-14-84.ripe.coltfrance.com [84.14.106.194]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5D2BC1C5B5C for <manet@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Nov 2013 22:50:13 -0800 (PST)
From: Thomas Heide Clausen <thomas@thomasclausen.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (11B511)
Message-Id: <BC87E71A-BB27-4A58-BAF5-8968D64CE0A5@thomasclausen.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 07:50:11 +0100
To: List List <manet@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: [manet] RFC6622bis - a pointer to the datatracker
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 06:50:18 -0000

All,

As Ulrich's and Rick's minutes (thank you for posting them so rapidly - I have sent you a couple of comments/typo's off-line) recall, I promised to post an update on the mailing list regarding the status of RFC6622bis. 

So, I better do that promptly.

The "official" version of the status (the DISCUSS and COMMENT that the ADs have raised) is here:

	https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-rfc6622-bis/ballot/

Essentially, the SEC ADs have raised a discuss each, and we've tried to iterate with them this past week on how to address them best. Specifically, we had one topic with each SEC-AD:

	Stephen:
		Is worried about "how much we can truncate a HMAC", pointing out that a sensible
		truncating limit should be set, as a function of the other characteristics of the 
		system (essentially, message emission rates).

	Sean:
		Is worried about getting and setting sensible default parameters for the different
		cryptographic (& other) functions involved, and that these be specified (for ensuring
		interoperability).

Adrian Farrel was instrumental in facilitating these discussions and in moving towards resolution - thank you Adrian. And thank you Stephen and Sean (for the discussions we've had, and for the education you have provided). 

I believe that we left the week hopeful that we had sorted it all out, and after a tiny bit of wordsmithing should be good.

I also want to thank Russ Housley for according us a chunk of his time, for educating Ulrich and myself over coffee, on some more general aspects of the issues that Sean and Stephen raised.

Thomas

Sent from my iPad