Subject: [Anima] Ted Lemon's No Objection on charter-ietf-anima-00-09: (with COMMENT)

From: "Ted Lemon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 08:31:50 -0700

Ted Lemon has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-anima-00-09: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-anima/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm changing this to No Objection for the External Review, since I think
the real work needs to happen in a discussion between the Homenet people
and the ANIMA people, not between me and Benoit.   The reason I chose
BLOCK and not no objection with comment is the issue of whether to
resolve this in a BoF or in External Review discussions, but I think the
right thing to do is move forward with External Review and see what
happens, and we can revisit the BoF/Charter question after the results of
that discussion are in.

The following exchange between Mark and Brian illustrates what I want out
of a BoF or External Review discussion:

Mark:

[...]

In any case, It's not hard to extrapolate from here that in a year's time
or so, if we continue on the current trajectory, homenet will have come
up with its own non-anima secure bootstrapping, and anima will have come
up with its own non-homenet distributed IPv6 prefix configuration.  

Brian:

Which we should try to coordinate, since I see no reason in
theory why there can't be common underlying mechanisms between
enterprise, carrier and SOHO. But I don't want to hear in 2 years
time that homenet is stuck because anima hasn't met its milestones.

Ted:

Right now Homenet has a solution for the distributed configuration
problem with a spec and at least one WIP implementation, and is working
seriously on the mutual authentication problem.   There may be some
synergy between what Homenet is trying to do and what ANIMA is trying to
do.   If there is, it would be a big win to coordinate the two groups'
activities.   It may also be that there is no synergy, and the efforts
are really effectively independent.

Before the working group is chartered, I would like to see some clarity
reached about this.   If there is synergy, I'd like there to be some
clear agreement about how to move forward so that ANIMA can achieve its
goals and Homenet can achieve its goals without either creating an
interop problem or stalling.