On 06/10/2014 13:15, Michael Thomas wrote:
> On 10/05/2014 05:09 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> Hiya,
>>
>> On 05/10/14 22:55, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> So, in my opinion, model #1 (a shared secret known to every device)
>>> is pretty weak. It might be acceptable for a small home network
>>> with
On 10/05/2014 05:09 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Hiya,
On 05/10/14 22:55, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
So, in my opinion, model #1 (a shared secret known to every device)
is pretty weak. It might be acceptable for a small home network
with a very careful human owner, but not beyond that limit. This i
Hiya,
On 05/10/14 22:55, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> So, in my opinion, model #1 (a shared secret known to every device)
> is pretty weak. It might be acceptable for a small home network
> with a very careful human owner, but not beyond that limit. This is exactly
> the kind of shared secret that
(cc's trimmed. I'm not sure the whole IESG wants this in their inboxen.)
On 06/10/2014 08:51, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>
> On 10/4/14, 10:16 PM, "Brian E Carpenter"
> wrote:
>
>> On 05/10/2014 09:24, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>>> Right - but we still have to agree on the admin or, as you put i
On 10/4/14, 10:16 PM, "Brian E Carpenter"
wrote:
>On 05/10/2014 09:24, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>> Right - but we still have to agree on the admin or, as you put it,
>> ownership model. At least one of the proposal for autonomic networking
>>is
>> a centralized approach as opposed to configuri
>>>
>>>> For ANIMA, we should surely study what homenet is working on and
>>>> identify
>>>> the differentia. Only after then, we can produce necessary solution
>>>> with
>>>> confusing the world.
>>>>
>>>>
On 05/10/2014 09:24, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> Right - but we still have to agree on the admin or, as you put it,
> ownership model. At least one of the proposal for autonomic networking is
> a centralized approach as opposed to configuring a single authentication
> password on each new device (a
;>with
>>> confusing the world.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Sheng
>>> ________________
>>> From: homenet [homenet-boun...@ietf.org] on behalf of Toerless Eckert
>>> [eck...@cisco.com]
>>>
o.com]
>> Sent: 02 October 2014 22:41
>> To: Leddy, John
>> 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: (wi
02 October 2014 22:41
>To: Leddy, John
>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)
>
>Fully agreed. But does this imply that
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Stephen Farrell
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
> -Original Message-
> From: homenet [mailto:homenet-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stephen
> Farrell
> Sent: 02 October 2014 15:15
> To: Michael Behringer (mbehring); Ted Lemon; The IESG
> Cc: homenet@ietf.org; an...@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [homenet] [Anima] Ted Lem
...@ietf.org] on behalf of Toerless Eckert
[eck...@cisco.com]
Sent: 02 October 2014 22:41
To: Leddy, John
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
] [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
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 02/10/14 13:49, Michael Behringer (mbehring) wrote:
>>> My personal goal i
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 6:50 AM, Leddy, John
wrote:
> My worry on this topic is that we are referring to ³the Home² and ³the
> Enterprise².
I have always approached homenet as a place to get standards that also work for
small business. Small business is the place (IMHO) where much of an
ipv6 revol
On 03/10/2014 04:12, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Stephen Farrell
> 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
On 03/10/2014 01:49, 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 w
Fully agreed. But does this imply that we will make most progress by
blocking out a working group that is actively chartered to look at
the problems in the market segments Homenet is not addressing ?
If the BLOCK is meant to suggest a charter improvements for anima to
better define our mutual desi
My worry on this topic is that we are referring to ³the Home² and ³the
Enterprise².
It isn¹t that clear of a distinction. This isn¹t just a simple L2 flat
home vs. a Fortune 1000 enterprise.
The home is getting more complex and includes work from home; IOT, home
security, hot spots, cloud service
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
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. To me, address managem
21 matches
Mail list logo
