Re: [Pana] status of wg documents

["Glen Zorn" <gwz at net-zen.net>]

Jari Arkko [mailto:jari.arkko at piuha.net] writes:

> Glen,
> 
> >> The conclusion (in the WG) was that the security
> >> mechanism between the PAA and EP is a choice of the deployment and
> >> hence
> >> does not need to be specified.
> >>
> >
> > That's rather bizarre; the ADs are OK with this?
> >
> >
> 
> Frankly, I'm not thrilled about it. Generally speaking this sort of
> thing should be a part of our specifications. However, as I noted in
> the
> other e-mail, the overall level of effort and interest on the IPsec
> document is not very high. 

Well, the IPsec draft talks about securing the entire path from the PaC to
the EP.  I guess if the consensus is to use link-layer security (802.11?
How would this work id the PAA & EP aren't co-located?) or a VPN (From the
PaC to the EP?  How would this work at all?) that may be fine, but unless
I'm terribly mistaken (always a possibility!) the PAA-EP link is actually
part of the PANA infrastructure in the access network & it seems very odd
that we would leave it w/no specified method of protection...

> You could say that I'm equally unhappy with
> both of the possible outcomes...
> 
> Jari
>