Re: I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-10

[james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>]

On Apr 23, 2010, at 08:52 , Mark Smith wrote:
> 
> Otherwise we're in the trap of revising this draft/RFC for every new protocol that has end-to-end integrity.

Alas, I don't think we will quickly arrive at a consensus on more general language.

I'm adding HIP, and I'm clarifying the intent not to break MIPv6, because I think there won't be any objection to either of those changes.  I'm going to exercise editorial judgment and hold off on attempting to make a more generalized statement about unspecified future protocols.  I think the working group is interested in keeping I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security simple.  More advanced considerations, I would say, ought to be deferred for later publication.


--
james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>
member of technical staff, communications engineering