Hi Suresh, I had a private exchange last week with Julien about my comments and now I have no more issues with your proposal :)
Cheers. JMC. 2008/6/19 Suresh Krishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hi Jean-Michel, > > Jean-Michel Combes wrote: >> >> Hi Suresh, >> >> Sorry but some points are unclear for me. >> >> At first, what are assumptions you have regarding the MN? >> From my point of view, the MN is able to use SEND: in using either CGA >> or a cert linked to its address. Is it the same assumption for you >> because I am not sure this is the case? :) > > Yes. I am working under the same assumption as you :-). > >> >> Second point, if the MN have a CGA, how does the ND Proxy get the cert >> which will allow it to sign the NDP signaling instead of the MN? > > I think I am beginning to understand your issue. One thing I would like to > point out is that the ND proxy gets the authority to do this not from the MN > being proxied but from some other entity that is trusted by the receiving > MN. > >> >> Last point, if the MN have a cert linked to its address, how does this >> cert is provided to the MN? > > This is out of scope of this document. The document does not talk about > certificates for end nodes. > > Cheers > Suresh > > _______________________________________________ CGA-EXT mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cga-ext
