Hi, Jari, Please see my reply in lines.
Regards, Sheng > You are right about how the charter text is written. However, I > have > been interpreting this a bit more broadly. > > The other side is that the DHC charter also has a security item. I guess we can have discussions in both WGs and see how it is going. In CSI WG, we may focus on how CGA should be configured/generated in DHCP environment; at the same time, in DHC WG,we may focus on more how DHCP should be extended to adopt CGA. > In any case, I do not think we can jump to solutions that involve > CGAs > without first doing the groundwork: what are the possible > approaches to > using CGAs in the conjunction of DHCP? Its hard to separate the use > of > CGA addresses in DHCP from the benefits to protecting the DHCP > process. Between CGA and DHCP, there are actually two directions: a) using DHCP to serve/enable the generation/usage of CGA on host, this should be the work content of CSI; b) using CGA to serve the security of DHCP, this is mainly about extend DHCP with new options, it should be work item of DHC. > Please ask for the CSI slot as well and see where the discussion > takes us. I did request a time slot in CSI to talk about the above a) point. I can mention above b) point in my talk and clarify the different. Discussions in both WG are useful to take these work forward. Best regards, Sheng > JiangSheng 66104 wrote: > > Hi, Jari, > > > > Yes, there is a DHCP relevant chartered item in CSI work group as I > > quate below. However, it is quite different from this draft. The > chartered> item in CSI is mainly about how to use CGA in DHCP- > managed networks. It is > > covered by my another draft: > > www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jiang-sendcgaext-cga-config- > 02.txt> > > The current CSI charter does not cover securing DHCP with CGA. > That's why I > > submit this draft to DHC group. It is mainly adopting CGA to > serve DHCP > > for security purpose. It is extension of DHCP, not extension of > CGA. I think > > it is better to do this work in DHC WG rather than CSI. Based on > the above > > understanding, I did not request a time slot in CSI > > > > "Develop an informational document analysing different approaches to > > allow SeND and CGAs to be used in conjunction with DHCP, and making > > recommendations on which are the best suited. Recharter based on the > > result of the analysis." > > > > Best regards, > > > > Sheng > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Jari Arkko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Friday, July 25, 2008 8:28 pm > > Subject: Re: [dhcwg] *DRAFT* dhc WG agenda > > > > > >>> Secure DHCPv6 using CGA S. Jiang > > >>> > >> 10 > >> > >>> minutes > >>> <draft-jiang-dhc-Secure-DHCPv6-00> > >>> Initial WG review; accept as WG work item? > >>> > >> Note that we have another WG, CSI, whose charter has a work item > on > >> securing DHCP with CGA. Or to be more exact, producing first a > >> design > >> analysis before actually picking a solution. > >> > >> As a result, I don't think we want to adopt this document in the > >> DHC WG. > >> > >> But don't take this as a suggestion to avoid the discussion! The > >> discussion on the list has been useful, and we should also talk > >> about it > >> in the meeting. Has a slot been requested from CSI? > >> > >> Jari > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> dhcwg mailing list > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg > >> > >> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ CGA-EXT mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cga-ext
