[SECMECH] Second secmech bof

Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu> Fri, 30 September 2005 16:46 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ELO1m-0001RR-6n; Fri, 30 Sep 2005 12:46:30 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ELO1k-0001R2-HD; Fri, 30 Sep 2005 12:46:28 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA20403; Fri, 30 Sep 2005 12:46:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org ([69.25.196.178] helo=carter-zimmerman.mit.edu) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ELO9d-0001on-6l; Fri, 30 Sep 2005 12:54:38 -0400
Received: by carter-zimmerman.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 8042) id 0709EE0049; Fri, 30 Sep 2005 12:46:16 -0400 (EDT)
To: secmech@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 12:46:16 -0400
Message-ID: <tslu0g233mv.fsf@cz.mit.edu>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: b19722fc8d3865b147c75ae2495625f2
Cc:
Subject: [SECMECH] Second secmech bof
X-BeenThere: secmech@lists.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security mechanisms BOF <secmech.lists.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secmech>, <mailto:secmech-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/secmech>
List-Post: <mailto:secmech@lists.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secmech-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secmech>, <mailto:secmech-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: secmech-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: secmech-bounces@lists.ietf.org


As you will recall we had a bof on security mechanisms at IETf 63.
Two topics were under discussion: security mechanisms useful under
multiple frameworks and security mechanisms meeting urgent needs of
the EAP community.

Both topics received support at the bof.  However it was not clear
that there were sufficient volunteers to accomplish the first item of
multi-framework mechanisms.  The proponents of that proposal have been
working to build support and to refine their proposal.  They believe
that if there is a specific well defined proposal it will be easier to
evaluate and easier to get interest in.


It is important that this work not block the critical need of
standardizing EAP mechanisms that meet the needs of the IETF and other
SDOs.  Jari has approached me with a proposal on this front.  He
believes there are enough open issues on exactly what we want to do
that we need a second bof.  He enumerated these issues and so I tend
to agree with him.

I intend to approve the second bof for eap methods work once some
details are worked out.  The secmech bof at IETf 63 counts as the
first bof on this proposal.


Note that at some level the two items in the secmech bof have split.
The bof at IETF 64 will not cover multi-framework mechanisms.  As
such,it will not count as a second bof for that proposal.

--Sam


_______________________________________________
SECMECH mailing list
SECMECH@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secmech