Re: [Tsvwg] Adopting draft-behringer-tsvwg-rsvp-security-groupkeying as WG item?

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

On 2008-1-29, at 13:07, ext Francois Le Faucheur IMAP wrote:
> On 29 Jan 2008, at 11:05, Lars Eggert wrote:
>> However, I'm now hesitating, because I've heard the argument being  
>> made (both in Vancouver during SAAG and in the recent email by  
>> Francois) that the acceptance of draft-behringer-tsvwg-rsvp- 
>> security-groupkeying as a TSVWG work item would establish a need to  
>> work on a solution in MSEC (based on draft-weis-gdoi-for-rsvp). I  
>> don't agree with this argument. At best, the document would  
>> identify a hole in the solution space, and if MSEC wants to fill  
>> that, I'd need to find its own motivation for doing so.
>
> I am failing to see the concern.
>
> First, I have already clarified several times that draft-behringer  
> is NOT tied to draft-weis-gdoi-for-rsvp.

I'm happy to hear you say that, because in an earlier email you said:

"I am not aware of any solution currently available from the IETF to  
actually deploy such distribution of group keys for RSVP. This could,  
for example, be easily achieved with small extensions to GDOI (draft- 
weis-gdoi-for-rsvp), but a solution will only be defined in IETF (e.g.  
by MSEC) if the corresponding need is established by the TSVWG."

The last part ("if the corresponding need is established by TSVWG")  
made me wonder whether the adoption of draft-behringer by TSVWG would  
be claimed to establish this need. I'm glad we agree that it wouldn't.

> Second, draft-behringer is not proposing to dictate what MSEC should  
> or should not do. It is about documenting group keying applicability  
> to RSVP and its benefits in some scenarios. The expectation is  
> indeed that MSEC will find its own motivation to develop a solution  
> based on the benefits it would bring to RSVP. That's all.

Great. Because recalling the discussion in SAAG, I came away with a  
different impression. The SAAG minutes say:

"There was progress on four [MSEC - ed.] work items, including crypto  
suites for
GDOI, and extensions to GDOI for hash agility, GDOI for SRTP, and
TESLA extensions.  There are also several current work items that
are not making progress and may need to be dropped.  Some new work
has been proposed to support keying for transport and routing
protocols, but this work will not go forward unless it is clear that
the appropriate WGs in transport and routing have consensus.
If clear direction is provided, msec will consider a charter update for
new work.  Otherwise, msec will stay on course to complete its active  
documents and shut down."

The "support keying for transport" bit was about RSVP group keying  
(draft-weis), and the half-sentence following it makes it pretty clear  
that MSEC won't take it on unless TSVWG would indicate some sort of  
consensus about this work. I'm merely attempting to clarify that any  
adoption of draft-behringer isn't such an indication.

> With these clarifications in mind, do you still see an issue?

No, with these clarifications, I don't see an issue.

Lars