Hi Michaela, On Thursday 18 December 2008, Michaela Vanderveen wrote: > Hi, > > I have reviewed this draft and have the following comments: > > Other reviewers think that the draft is reaching too far into the > solution space, for a problem statement. I find the level of solution > hints to be acceptable. In any case it seems that maybe it's a bit > late for a WGLC?
Wandering into solution space in a problem statement document is not problematic per se. But we're looking at a security problem, thus what is problematic is, the problem statement does not define the trust model from which we can observe what the problem is. As a start we could try to answer these questions: where is the NDproxy, who owns it, who operates it, who authorizes it, to do what? An answer could be: the NDproxy is on small residential network connected to an ISP by a CPE, it is owned by the customer but operated by said ISP, it is authorized by CGA owners on the link to send NS/NAs for said CGA owners, and by said ISP to advertize the prefix delegated to the CPE. Is this a good answer? Is it the only good one? --julien _______________________________________________ CGA-EXT mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cga-ext
