Subject: [MSEC] Vancouver Meeting

From: Lakshminath Dondeti <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 13:06:56 -0700

Folks,

It appears that there is some level of interest to have a meeting in 
Vancouver.  I am still not fully convinced, however.  In any event, I 
have submitted a request for a meeting slot.

If there is a strong case for rechartering or charter expansion or new 
items, please convince folks on this list and others and request them to 
come to the meeting.  I will request Tim to be present so we can gauge 
interest.  Leading up to the meeting (if the secretariat can indeed 
accommodate us), I would like to see activity in that direction.

Next, let us also try to finish the currently chartered items and other 
works in progress.

Please feel free to send requests for Agenda slots.  Once I hear from 
the secretariat, I will update you.

thanks,
Lakshminath

_______________________________________________
MSEC mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/msec

---

From: Liu Ya <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 10:34:44 +0800

Hi all,

When we used MSEC GKM protocols, such as GDOI and GSAKMP, to provide
automated group keying for rfc4552, we found a chicken&egg issue.
Section 4 of draft-liu-ospfv3-automated-keying-req,
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-liu-ospfv3-automated-keying-
req-01.txt, explains that issue in details as follows:

   MSEC GKM protocols, such as GSAKMP and GDOI, are based on a 
   client/server model. This means these protocols rely on
reachability 
   between clients and servers for the clients to obtain the group SA 
   from the server. In this case, the GKM is providing protection for 
   OSPF, which is an essential component in providing reachability 
   between the clients and servers. Hence, the client/server model 
   breaks down in this situation. 

   To overcome this problem, the group SA must be locally available to

   each group member (each OSPFv3 router). Possible solutions to this 
   circular dependency and their specific requirements are presented
in 
   this section.
   ...

Section 4 of draft-liu-ospfv3-automated-keying-req also discusses 3
possible deployment scenarios that can make group SAs locally
available. Except for deploying a physical key server per multicast
network, all other deployment scenarios need extensions to be added to
GKM protocols. I think such extensions would be new MSEC work items.

Comments are welcome.

Regards,
Liu Ya

---

From: Liu Ya <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 10:34:44 +0800

Hi all,

Comments are welcome.

Regards,
Liu Ya