Re: [Pana] What to do with I-D: draft-ietf-pana-ipsec

[Jari Arkko <jari.arkko at piuha.net>]

Can we technically specify the IPsec parts without PEMK? If yes, we 
should do it. If not, we have an issue.

Quickly scanning through the documents, PaC-EP-Master-Key does not seem 
to be defined in RFC 5191 but it is used by draft-ietf-pana-ipsec. At 
the very least we need a definition of Pac-EP-Master-Key in 
draft-ietf-pana-ipsec, not sure if a separate document is needed.

Jari

Basavaraj.Patil at nokia.com wrote:
> Hi Yoshi,
>
> Current intent is to complete the WG I-Ds. Given that the PEMK I-D is not a WG document at this time, I would be reluctant to consider any further action from the PANA WG perspective. 
>
> -Raj 
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pana-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:pana-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Yoshihiro Ohba
> Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 6:50 PM
> To: Jari Arkko
> Cc: pana at ietf.org; Patil Basavaraj (Nokia-D/Dallas)
> Subject: Re: [Pana] What to do with I-D: draft-ietf-pana-ipsec
>
> There is a related document (i.e., draft-ohba-pana-pemk-02) that defines PaC-EP Master Key (PEMK).  PEMK is derived to be cryptographically independent across multiple different types of lower layers including IPsec.  What should we do with pana-pemk draft?
>
> Yoshihiro Ohba
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 12:12:10PM +0300, Jari Arkko wrote:
>   
> > My primary issue with this document was the lack of cycles, if there 
> > had been no one interested in taking it to completion we should have 
> > dropped it. Since you two are volunteering, can you work with the 
> > chairs to take over the work, and do whatever is needed to bring the 
> > document to a reasonable state?
> >
> > Jari
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pana mailing list
> > Pana at ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pana
> >
> >     
> _______________________________________________
> Pana mailing list
> Pana at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pana
>
>
>