I am fully agree with Brian and Kathleen. It is well understood that the new WG would study on existing solutions and ongoing proposals to make sure it is necessary to create new mechanisms. Coordination and awareness is essential for the ANIMA group.
Best regards, Sheng ________________________________________ From: homenet [homenet-boun...@ietf.org] on behalf of Brian E Carpenter [brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com] Sent: 03 October 2014 5:47 To: Kathleen Moriarty Cc: Michael Behringer (mbehring); The IESG; homenet@ietf.org; Stephen Farrell; an...@ietf.org; Ted Lemon Subject: Re: [homenet] [Anima] Ted Lemon's Block on charter-ietf-anima-00-09: (with BLOCK) On 03/10/2014 04:12, Kathleen Moriarty wrote: > On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie> > wrote: > >> >> On 02/10/14 13:49, Michael Behringer (mbehring) wrote: >>> My personal goal is that what we do in ANIMA is fully compatible with >>> and ideally used in homenet. It would feel wrong to me to have an >>> infrastructure that doesn't work in a homenet. >>> >>> The security bootstrap is a good example of what we can achieve, with >>> reasonable effort. >> FWIW, it is not clear to me that the reasonable requirements >> for provisioning device security information (or bootstrapping >> if we wanted to call it that) are the same. >> > > This is where we would have overlap with SACM and I2NSF. I've spoken in > Ops and Dan R has helped to try to recruit some folks to help in SACM. It > would be good to not solve this in multiple places. SACM and I2NSF are > de-conflicting what they cover. Provisioning and assessing security > information is part of those efforts already, hence my questions on the > charter as well. > >> In enterprise environments we see fewer larger vendors of devices. >> In the home where we additionally have a large range of vendors >> many of whom are tiny and leverage a lot of OSS and who could >> perhaps not take part in the kind of provisioning infrastructure >> that is quite reasonable for enterprises and their vendors. >> > > There is a push in the vendor space for this type of automation and I'm all > for it, let's just coordinate on it so we don't wind up with too many ways > to do it. Absolutely. It isn't surprising that Anima proponents are proposing specific approaches to security (or anything else), but there is an overriding sentence in the charter: "Where suitable protocols, models or methods exist, they will be preferred over creating new ones. " Clerarly that calls for coordination and awareness. Brian > > >> I do think both want to end up in the same state, where devices >> are authorised for connection to the network and where there is >> some keying material usable for security, but I'd be surprised >> if one approach to getting there worked the same way for both >> homes and enterprises. >> > > I'd like to see this discusses more, but maybe it's not in this group? > > Thanks, > Kathleen > >> S. >> >> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Anima mailing list > an...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
