Subject: RE: Summary of work areas

From: "Tony Li" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 19:50:38 -0800

|  > Threat analysis
|  > Locator storage & distribution
|  > Mappings between locators, identifiers, and FQDNs
|  > Security solutions
|  > Exit addressing
|  >
|  > Additions, modifications?
|  
|  Are you saying that these are issues that you would like to see in 
|  Elliots draft or are you saying that these are issues that 
|  we need to 
|  break out as sub-pieces in general?

Kurtis,

I'm proposing that we divide-and-conquer on these issues.  We send
folks off to document the solution space for each of these, document
the pros and cons, and then try to achieve subgroup consensus for
each of these major decisions.  

I want to stress that this is a PROPOSAL.  If you wanna do something
else, I'm game.  All that I'm proposing is that we avoid proposal
bashing and instead take a normal engineering subsystem approach
to making decisions.  Hierarchy is a fine goal for tackling scalability
in our decision making processes as well.

I was under the impression that Elliot was going to document these
areas.  If I'm confused, please push my reset.

Regards,
Tony

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 15:17:35 +0100

Tony,

> areas.  If I'm confused, please push my reset.

What I think I'd like to see is Elliot's draft written up with the 
operational issues that are not in RFC3582, and I'd like to see Erik's 
threat analysis completed (or merged with other proposals - as long as 
we get to a single proposal). At some point we also need to document 
the trade-offs that each of the issues in Elliot's draft imply. I am 
not sure that we should do that in Elliot's draft though, as we then 
are already assuming properties of the solution. But maybe we are that 
far ahead, I am certainly open for discussion.

As for dividing the problem into subsystems, I think that is a good 
model. That is also what I think Randy said in the session yesterday. 
However, my understanding from the session yesterday was that Elliot's 
draft together with 3582 would serve as this list of subsystems.

So I guess you are right in your last paragraph. And I am sure that 
Elliot will appreciate comments and text to help him, as I am sure that 
Erik will on the threats draft. Me and Randy yesterday also dragged 
Patrik and a few other applications people in here so that we can make 
sure to meet their needs. Keith Moor yesterday said he didn't feel that 
any of the current proposals meets the needs of applications. If that 
is the case we need to get that documented and better understood. That 
is not a target of Elliot's draft as I understood it. My take is that 
if the "applications requirement list" is too long and to diverse from 
where we are heading, we might need to document that as well.

- - kurtis -

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 08:26:02 -0800

I'm working on an outline that I'll bounce off the AD and then send to 
the list.