Subject: [anonsec] revision of proposed WG charter

From: Black_David at emc.com ([email-masked])
Date: Fri Nov 19 13:22:49 2004

> I read the "not preclude" as "not preclude". Having a way to do it
> is the work of another WG, isn't it? Specifying a way to do it might
> be relevent, _if_ we can point off to another case where it's already
> done.  I see that as somewhat premature at this point. The ADs might
> be able to clarify...

The actual binding to other protocols is the work of other WGs
that own those protocols.  OTOH, the specification of the material
that is to be bound to arguably belongs here so that it's done once
and correctly, along with some useful "how to bind" guidance (e.g.,
don't send this in the clear ...).  I have a resurrectable draft
that includes how to do this for iSCSI CHAP, and I believe there's
interest in the nfsv4 WG in binding.

I'd prefer stronger wording than "do not preclude" which
essentially says "can't work on this here", and instead would
like to at least allow the work to happen here, e.g.:

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.

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 14:07:24 2004

> 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?

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/20041119/09e4767f/signature.bin

---

From: hartmans-ietf at mit.edu (Sam Hartman)
Date: Fri Nov 19 18:17:22 2004

>>>>> "Joe" == Joe Touch <[email-masked]> writes:

    Joe> <bof chair hat on>

    Joe> The specification of what is required to support binding
    Joe> should be defined elsewhere. It should be sufficient to
    Joe> comply with that spec, no?

I honestly wouldn't mind if the specification of what you bind to
happened in the same place as BTNS.  However I agree with Joe that it
is not in scope for what BTNS is intended to address and believe that
doing it somewhere else (probably an individual submission) is fine.

If doing the work of what to bind to were in a charter I was taking to
the IESG I would not remove it.  If it were not there I would not try
to add it.