From mcr@sandelman.ca Wed Mar 13 20:53:29 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: solace@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: solace@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28B0221F8C3B for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 20:53:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.889 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.889 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.399, BAYES_00=-2.599, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 24qbbo98rVcc for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 20:53:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [176.58.120.209]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A42B21F87CC for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 20:53:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (unknown [70.193.196.66]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF7E722065 for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 03:53:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from sandelman.ca (quigon.sandelman.ca [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09A2BCA0CF for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 23:24:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: solace@ietf.org X-Mailer: MH-E 8.3; nmh 1.3; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 22) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 23:24:28 -0400 Message-ID: <7047.1363231468@sandelman.ca> Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca Subject: [solace] Will this IRTF group proceed? X-BeenThere: solace@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "\"Smart Object Lifecycle Architecture for Constrained Environments\" discussion list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 03:53:29 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable We are now at the second meeting after we concluded that we needed something like SOLACE. Are we any closer to forming a specific group? While many of us have been focused on security, I think that there may be some other things that could benefit from a a clearer lifetime process. I am thinking in particular of various phases outlined by the ROLL industrial applicability may mandate rekeying of the network between phases. I'm not sure that I'm satisfied with an IRTF group. =2D-=20 Michael Richardson =2Don the road- --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAABAgAGBQJRQULsAAoJEKD0KQ7Gj3P2UWsH/iH74SQ5Ql3MHzdssZLLw0FS LrFRx+ehnsIXbwPZrl61w16gLuP43tryegmTMAV7jeHMOX7YJvFN6QFKdRZ2jSxG xEDL5XYVRJ94M9RV4JBQM/qUvic3FSE4ONL4uG1jn1ECxmoA5maN49lvWlQU0hZ0 BcXlYzS1VU4UygQsevjwA0L5m3anMMC5FsjMzLmXBCdMUgSHL6hC4ojjxbuiNxAe v6iluiVDKXCeugckEEP/K6Nwsn78sP5jeniTFnFqIrLkAI98Ur9gqbeh41U8Kb3g 6sUZ27RELsTvFVcuZH+swG75Ip8/8MZtpwHQGEFNomRdrrL36H8Am2wVP1gnpMY= =GeWh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From cabo@tzi.org Thu Mar 14 09:26:34 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: solace@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: solace@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AC1C11E8103 for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 09:26:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.45 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E3KTu4ncgQWf for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 09:26:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 214EC21F8F81 for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 09:26:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r2EGQROv022312; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 17:26:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from dhcp-9032.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-9032.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.8.50]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 64A4E35F6; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 17:26:27 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: <7047.1363231468@sandelman.ca> Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 17:26:25 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <3BF0F7B1-C84D-403D-918B-10C7EF18FC31@tzi.org> References: <7047.1363231468@sandelman.ca> To: Michael Richardson X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) Cc: solace@ietf.org Subject: Re: [solace] Will this IRTF group proceed? X-BeenThere: solace@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "\"Smart Object Lifecycle Architecture for Constrained Environments\" discussion list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:26:34 -0000 On Mar 14, 2013, at 04:24, Michael Richardson = wrote: >=20 > We are now at the second meeting after we concluded that we needed > something like SOLACE. Are we any closer to forming a specific group? I don't think we want a "SOLACE" IRTF group. I spent this morning in the LWIG meeting. This felt a lot like an IRTF meeting usually feels. Some of it was about security, but of course more about the = implementation of security. There is a DTLS-based draft that might address the multicast security = problem. Right now I'm at the COMAN lunch meeting. 10 people are here, and we are discussing things that are also related = to lifecycle issues. Yesterday, we had a CORE meeting, where we said we wanted to pick up = something like the "Mothership" work. (We also said that we don't want = to second-guess the ZigBee IP work.) > While many of us have been focused on security, I think that there may > be some other things that could benefit from a a clearer lifetime > process. I am thinking in particular of various phases outlined by = the > ROLL industrial applicability may mandate rekeying of the network > between phases. Right, another one. > I'm not sure that I'm satisfied with an IRTF group. Nobody would be satisfied with just an IRTF group. What the IRTF RG should do is keep an eye on the wider issues in this = space. We also need to do engineering work, and it now seems there are some = items we can pick up immediately. Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten