IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Melinda Shore <mshore@cisco.com> Mon, 28 January 2008 12:23 UTC

Return-path: <tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJT1U-0000Gi-PH; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 07:23:36 -0500
Received: from tsvwg by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JJT1T-0000Gb-Kt for tsvwg-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 07:23:35 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJT1T-0000GT-9e for tsvwg@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 07:23:35 -0500
Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72] helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJT1S-00021H-V6 for tsvwg@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 07:23:35 -0500
Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Jan 2008 04:23:34 -0800
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m0SCNYWx009522; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 04:23:34 -0800
Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id m0SCNQj7011081; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:23:29 GMT
Received: from xmb-rtp-205.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.59]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 28 Jan 2008 07:23:26 -0500
Received: from 10.86.115.68 ([10.86.115.68]) by xmb-rtp-205.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.59]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:23:26 +0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.3.3.061214
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 07:23:27 -0500
Subject: Re: [Tsvwg] Adopting draft-behringer-tsvwg-rsvp-security-groupkeying as WG item?
From: Melinda Shore <mshore@cisco.com>
To: Francois Le Faucheur IMAP <flefauch@cisco.com>, Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com>
Message-ID: <C3C3336F.31EF0%mshore@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [Tsvwg] Adopting draft-behringer-tsvwg-rsvp-security-groupkeying as WG item?
Thread-Index: AchhqJV208SujM2bEdyrYwAKleNSdA==
In-Reply-To: <7A1BB0E8-5EFB-4341-918A-F841DB1B57FF@cisco.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Jan 2008 12:23:26.0703 (UTC) FILETIME=[9548B7F0:01C861A8]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=651; t=1201523014; x=1202387014; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=mshore@cisco.com; z=From:=20Melinda=20Shore=20<mshore@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[Tsvwg]=20Adopting=0A=20draft-behringer -tsvwg-rsvp-security-groupkeying=20as=20WG=20item? |Sender:=20; bh=S1HkaPe47oK0NQD9JNL1wRqDVythjSp49THxKEek2Vs=; b=djSr2YpaT0b1pQ2wYePu8y3mb5RzElPlfQM8Iuco4bE9+9mrWZAl1OvgC4 rSJl3iwOAEiere/0pZ2NblkVRmqi+jo+OC6+rkfI+dZBovxfypv2ZL8zpG01 MD0rr2uZdu;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=mshore@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: de4f315c9369b71d7dd5909b42224370
Cc: ext Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, RJ Atkinson <rja@extremenetworks.com>, Brian Weis <bew@cisco.com>, tsvwg list IETF <tsvwg@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org

On 1/28/08 4:59 AM, "Francois Le Faucheur IMAP" <flefauch@cisco.com> wrote:
> 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.

I'd like to add that there's some pent-up pool of
GDOI profiles, at least one member of which is waiting
to see what happens with the RSVP profile and what MSEC
decides to do.

I do think that this is an enormously useful approach
for when peers cannot be known in advance and PKI is
unavailable or otherwise not attractive.

Melinda

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email