Subject: [anonsec] revision of proposed WG charter

From: Black_David at emc.com ([email-masked])
Date: Fri Nov 19 14:35:23 2004

Joe,

> > This work should not preclude the binding of security thus
> > provided with security at other layers.  Specification of how
> > to generate security association identification information suitable
> > for binding with security at other layers and guidelines for
> > such binding is within the scope of this work.
> 
> <bof chair hat on>
> 
> The specification of what is required to support binding should be 
> defined elsewhere. It should be sufficient to comply with that spec, no? 

I'm not sure that's the best structure, as I think discussion here has
already indicated some malleability/flexibility (accompanied by strong
opinions) on what is required to support binding (e.g., whether public
keys and certs are really needed).

Doing the requirements work here could help line up binding requirements
with the other requirements that motivate this work whereas asking
others to draw up requirements externally could result in a draft that
requires public keys and certificates for binding, necessitating AD
intervention to sort out the resulting uproar when this group objects
to the requirements.  OTOH, I could see the usage guidelines for binding
being done outside, although I'd be tempted to try to roll them into
one draft with the requirements, as the result is probably more useful.

Thanks,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
[email-masked]        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------

---

From: touch at ISI.EDU (Joe Touch)
Date: Fri Nov 19 14:53:20 2004

> one draft with the requirements, as the result is probably more useful.

<BOF chair hat on>

Doing binding requirements work here seems off-topic, and likely to 
diffuse the effort of this group. While there are some who feel that 
binding motivates this work, there are others who feel this work is 
critical even without binding. Further, there is certainly utility to 
the binding work elsewhere (assuming conventional IKE) as well (not all 
certificates have the same meaning or strength).

Joe
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 254 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://www.postel.org/pipermail/anonsec/attachments/20041119/cb1c06e2/signature.bin