Re: Draft of updated WG charter

[Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

>> As promised, here is a draft proposed by the co-chairs as an update
>> to the multi6 charter. Please read and comment. We'd like to forward
>> this for IESG approval within a week or two.
>
>> The WG will take on the following tasks:
>> ========================================
>>
>> Produce a document describing how multihoming is done today in IPv4,
>> including an explanation of both the advantages and limitations of the
>> approaches.
>
> We had a stab at this a while ago. No doubt we can dust it off, clean
> it up and resubmit.

That would be great. I have been beating on Joe on and off asking for 
this, he was volunteered in Vienna. :-)
 From what I remember there where actually quite wide support in Vienna 
that this was an important document.

>> Produce a document outlining practical questions to be considered
>> when evaluating proposals meeting the RFC 3582 goals, including
>> questions concerning upper layer protocols.
>>
>> Produce a document describing the security threats to be countered
>> by multihoming solutions.
>
> Do we want to put the onus of security on the routing or do we want
> to let the end-points (for some value of end-point) validate
> what they are being sent?

That depends on the type of solution, and "what" is being sent. If the 
solution is based on the end-point receiving updates, of some sort, the 
end-point should be able to know they are valid. The same goes for the 
routing. If it is the source of an update (either by detecting a 
change, forcing a change, etc) that signaling should be validated. At 
least IMHO...but maybe this is overdoing the security part...

>> Development of specific solutions will require approval of the IESG 
>> (e.g., a recharter).
>
> This will be handled here via recharter or in IDR?

That is for discussion when we know what the outcome of this WG is, and 
what the ADs feels, the IESG feels, hight of the SUN, etc. Do you think 
that is something that we should charter already now?

Best regards,

- - kurtis -

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.3

iQA/AwUBP/2VIaarNKXTPFCVEQLCDgCfZTINYcNcvcxLDplh6L62TzZie3EAoKEc
t0q+RPZTPT6Cr4L30CiT+RpM
=yAc5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----