Subject: [MSEC] MSEC documents roadmap vs. Umbrella document on MIKEY protocols

From: Lakshminath Dondeti <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 10:12:54 +0200

What: One of the topics for discussion is whether we want to write an 
MSEC documents roadmap or an umbrella document on MIKEY protocols (other 
ideas are welcome too).

Why:  At various times in the life of MSEC, people have asked for an 
MSEC documents roadmap.  The number of MIKEY documents has also been 
increasing and it is always not clear to everyone what fits with what 
and so forth.

How:  I think a new RFC is the right way.  There is a discussion in the 
newtrk working group on these things also.  I don't think we should wait 
for what comes out of that group (that could take a long time), but we 
can steal ideas :-).

Opinions and thoughts are very welcome.

thanks and regards,
Lakshminath
_______________________________________________
msec mailing list
[email-masked]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/msec

---

From: Mounir Kellil <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 12:06:23 +0200

Hi Lakshminath,

Regarding the expected "MSEC documents roadmap", couldn’t be some 
overlapping with the RFC 3740, bearing in mind that all MSEC documents 
(cuurent drafts and RFCs) are within the scope of that RFC?

Regards

Mounir

Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:

> MSEC documents roadmap or an umbrella document on MIKEY protocols 
> (other ideas are welcome too).
>
> newtrk working group on these things also. I don't think we should 
> wait for what comes out of that group (that could take a long time), 
> but we can steal ideas :-).
>

---

From: Mark Baugher <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 12:21:06 -0700

MIKEY is an active development area.  draft-ietf-mmusic-sdescriptions 
is also becoming a target for new features, but this is in mmusic.  
What I am thinking for sdescriptions might apply to MIKEY: Post and 
eventually publish new features as Proposed Standard RFCs and pick up 
the successful ones when the base protocol goes to Draft Standard.  I 
believe this is in line with IETF process.

Mark

p.s. MIKEY and the kmgmt I-D perform a similar function to 
sdescriptions, which treats key management as a set of additional SDP 
signaling parameters.

On Aug 5, 2005, at 1:12 AM, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:

> How:  I think a new RFC is the right way.  There is a discussion in 
> the newtrk working group on these things also.  I don't think we 
> should wait for what comes out of that group (that could take a long 
> time), but we can steal ideas :-).
>

---

From: Lakshminath Dondeti <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 15:11:14 -0700

Mark,

That (PS --> DS) does sound like a good long term plan.  What I am 
hoping to do is create a Work in Progress document (status TBD) that 
explains the inter-relationships between the MIKEY I-Ds?  There are 
automated tools that do this (based on which doc refers to which), but a 
WG document or even an individual submission that puts those 
relationships in human readable terms would help us all to form 
consensus on the docs proposing new things to MIKEY.  There is already a 
confusion out there, so this would help.

Put another way, I am convinced on why (and hoping to convince others), 
and trying to figure out what to do and how to do it :-).

thanks and regards,
Lakshminath

---

From: Lakshminath Dondeti <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 15:44:21 -0700

Thanks Mounir.  3740 does provide a good introduction to MSEC work, 
however it doesn't cover all that we do (not all of the MSEC documents 
get equivalent coverage in that document -- and for good reason).  If 
there is consensus that only MIKEY drafts need any explanation (as to 
the interrelationships between them), then we can work on an umbrella 
doc on MIKEY protocols.

best,
Lakshminath