Subject: Separate WG Draft for CGAs?

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 10:02:18 -0800

Folks,

There was some interest expressed prior to and at the last meeting in SFO for
separating out CGAs. The original reason was IPR considerations, but, from a
practical standpoint, Tuomas Aurea has already done a very nice job of
specifying a CGA algorithm in
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-aura-cga-00.txt. Rather than have to
edit Tuomas' text into the base SEND draft, Pekka and I thought it might be
easier to make Tuomas' draft a WG draft and refer to it in the base draft.

Any objections or other comments?

            jak

--------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, send email with "UNSUBSCRIBE" in the
body to <[email-masked]>.
Archive: http://standards.ericsson.net/lists/ietf-send/maillist.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 21:50:48 +0300 (EEST)

> Any objections or other comments?

The subject of CGA algorithm specification is largely orthogonal to the 
SEND protocol use of CGA.

If IPR issues were to surface in CGA, it would have to be even more 
completely ripped out of the SEND protocol, IMHO.

As such, a separate SEND algorithm document is probably useful but not
necessarily as useful as one would hope if worse comes to worst.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: Alper Yegin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2003 12:05:18 -0800

> easier to make Tuomas' draft a WG draft and refer to it in the base draft.

As I explained earlier, imo, there are more reasons to split the draft into
pieces than the IPR issue. So, I'm all for a split. And here is my
suggestion:

- one draft that includes how CGAs work (i.e., Tuomas' draft) plus how they
will be used with ND (i.e., half of current SEND draft)
    - one might further consider this as two separate drafts. Well, if we
    believe that CGAs will be used for other purposes in the future, it
    makes sense to have this separate as well.
- another draft on how to secure router discovery (i.e., the other half of
SEND draft)

alper

---

From: Pekka Nikander <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 14:36:09 +0300

> Any objections or other comments?

Since there were no objections, we decided to take Tuomas'
draft as a WG item.  The WG milestones have been updated
accordingly.

The WG now needs to start editing the draft so that it fits
in to the purposes of the working group, and all that is not
needed is either removed or moved into an appendix.

I will produce an initial issue list, probably later this
week or early next week.

--Pekka Nikander