Hi Stephane, Thanks for your comments. See in line please. > Apparently, your draft was not submitted? I do not find it in the > official repository, only in your initial message. I suggest to submit it. The cut off time for the I-D submission was 9 AM (ET), 2007-11-19. The I-D submission tool will be reopened at midnight, 2007-12-03, so I have to submit it after Dec 3. > > Take mobile phone as an example, you don't feel inconvenient at the > > age of no mobile phone, but once you use it, you will find you can > > not leave it almost. I believe the cryptographic host identifier has > > some kind of character like mobile phone. > > The relationship between the deployment of mobile phones and > cryptographic identifiers is a complete mystery to me... Maybe that example is not much proper. But what I want to say is some technology can create a new market opportunity. > The security section certainly requires more time and effort. I've > seen many ID/loc proposals and there is a common structure: the author > has a new idea (often a variation of existing ideas), post the draft > without security analysis, find that their proposal is much better > than any other proposal, and, when they try to add security in their > proposal, they discover that their proposal becomes as complicated and > difficult as the others. > > Security is often the Achille's heel of ID/loc separation. Every > indirection is a new failure point. Definitely agree. It's a common requirement for every id/loc split solution to take mapping registration/distribution security into account.
Best wishes, Xiaohu Xu -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
