Subject: [Capwap] Comments on the DTLS text

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 04:53:58 -0700

Scott:

Please consider the following changes to the DTLS draft: 

2.1.1) DTLS error statements 

   From a high level, simple replacement of the LWAPP security

   mechanisms with DTLS amounts to something like this:

   1.  Replace the JOIN phase with DTLS session establishment

   2.  Replace LWAPP re-key functionality with a DTLS re-key

   3.  Remove the existing LWAPP security scheme

   This amounts to employing DTLS as a tightly-integrated secure

   wrapper

Have you completed the next version of the draft? 

I have not seen any update to the draft.

Thank-you, 

Sue Hares  

_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap

Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap

---

From: Scott G Kelly <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 05:15:48 -0800

Hi Sue,

I think something was lost in the translation below. 2.1.1 is currently 
"Separate Control/Data Channel Ports", but I'm not sure what you're 
recommending below; please clarify.

As for the edits, Eric I spent a fair amount of time reviewing and 
discussing the suggested updates, and I started to edit the text, in 
some cases dropping in your text with minor editing. A short way into 
this exercise it ocurred to me that in the interest of efficiency, it 
might be better to take a slightly different approach.

Both you and Nancy have raised a number of questions/concerns. Some are 
answered very simply, and may or may not require new text (or if they 
do, we should be careful to make sure it's the *right* text). Some can 
be addressed with text you provided. Others require some discussion. And 
some seem to be due to misunderstandings about how dtls works and how it 
would be integrated.

In any event, rather than release another rev of the draft which may not 
adequately address your and Nancy's concerns, wait for inlined comments, 
and then repeating this exercise again, I'm thinking we should just 
discuss the issues individually here on the list, and once they are 
taken to closure, roll in the corresponding text.

To that end, I'll follow this email with a series of emails opening 
threads on each discussion point. Let's try to get this rapidly closed 
so we can get to final text asap.

Scott

Susan Hares wrote:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>