Subject: [AAA-DOCTORS] Fwd: Re: [Ace] Benoit Claise's Block on charter-ietf-ace-00-01: (with BLOCK)

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 10:53:12 -0700

Not sure why but the attached message has been automatically discarded.
Resending.

Regards, Benoit

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [Ace] Benoit Claise's Block on charter-ietf-ace-00-01: 
(with BLOCK)
Date: 	Thu, 15 May 2014 18:18:43 +0100
From: 	Robert Cragie <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: 	<[email-masked]>
Organization: 	Gridmerge Ltd.
To: 	Alan DeKok <[email-masked]>
CC: 	<[email-masked]>, Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, 
"The IESG" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, Benoit Claise 
<[email-masked]>, Ludwig Seitz <[email-masked]>

There is a difference between existing working protocols "working just
fine" and whether they are optimized for constrained environments. TLS
is also a case in point - it "works just fine" in Class 1 constrained
nodes (RFC 7228) even with ephemeral ECDH and X.509 certificates. On
that basis, the charter is not excluding anything.

I don't mind using the word "constrained" in the context of RFC 7228.

Robert

On 15/05/2014 3:36 PM, Alan DeKok wrote:
> Robert Cragie wrote:
>>   First, the charter does not say that "AAA protocols are inappropriate
>> for constrained environments". It says existing work was not optimized
>> for constrained environments, which is the case.
>    That all depends what you mean by "constrained".  If you read it as
> "small low-power, low-memory systems", then it's not true.  AAA
> protocols work there just fine.
>
>    If by "constrained", you mean "a mesh of small devices all of whom
> which to update resources on each other", then it is true.  But it's a
> very off definition of "constrained".
>
>    I would suggest avoiding the word "constrained", and replacing it with
> something a bit more descriptive.
>
>    Alan DeKok.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ace mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
>