Re: I intend to have a document ready for Atlanta on this subject.

[Richard Shockey <rich.shockey@NeuStar.com>]

>
>
>Jeff Schiller and I agree that there should be a BoF.  But it's worth
>some discussion on just what the subject should be.  The proposal we
>thought we were agreeing to is for IPsec keys, and in particular keys for
>opportunistic encryption.  A general key storage scheme -- the subject
>of SIKED -- is a much more difficult topic.

Agreed but shoud'nt a solution for IPsec keys be applicable to the general
case of applications?

It would seem that a IPsec only solution would miss a useful opportunity to
address the larger problem.

>  It would take quite a bit
>of effort to persuade me that there was reason for a second BoF on that
>topic at this time
>
>The current philosophy of the IESG is for working groups to be narrowly
>focused and -- with luck -- short-lived.  That requires a clear problem
>statement and a clear charter.

Understood ... I'm well aware of the problems in over generalizing a
problem statement, but how does one resolve the larger issue of DNS vs
pointers for keys.

It seems to considered a zero-sum game by some.

>  If people want a BoF for IPsec keys in
>the DNS, there's no problem; Jeff and I will approve it.  But whoever is
>interested in organizing such a BoF should see
>http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1bof-procedures.txt, draw up a description and
>agenda, and send it to the Secretariat, cc'ing Jeff and me.
>
>                 --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
>                 http://www.wilyhacker.com ("Firewalls" book)


 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives
NeuStar Inc.
46000 Center Oak Plaza  -   Sterling, VA  20166
Voice +1 571.434.5651 Cell : +1 314.503.0640,  Fax: +1 815.333.1237
<mailto:richard@shockey.us> or <mailto:richard.shockey@neustar.biz>
  <http://www.neustar.biz> ; <http://www.enum.org>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<