Hi Julien,
Thanks for the pointer. Please see my comments below.
On 6/27/06, Julien Laganier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thus the idea is that 16ng-ND draft can update its text based on
> the information in the general applicability section of the
> 6lowpan-ND draft.
Until today I was unaware of existence of Relay-DAD in 6lowpan and
16ng (silly me ;-)
As I mentionned already on the 16ng mailing list today:
<http://eeca16.sogang.ac.kr/pipermail/16ng/Week-of-Mon-20060626/000165.html>
In a draft I co-author (available there until it shows up in ID rep:
(<http://julien.laganier.free.fr/draft-ietf-netlmm-mn-ar-if-01.txt)
we also define Relay-DAD to support SEND (otherwise we could just have
proxied ND.)
Hence, I thought I should also ask to this mailing list opinions on
usefulness of a standalone document defining Relay-DAD?
I don't know how much security work will be part of 6lowpan charter.
This draft may be more applicable for the 16ng architecture at this point.
Don't know whether 6lowpan will adopt a very simple security scheme
( i,e shared group key) and perform all operation on it or add more
complicated scheme, due to its limitation on power and low processing
capability. draft-daniel-6lowpan-security-analysis-01.txt is starting to
define the 6lowpan threat model.
Thanks,
-Samita
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
