Re: Draft of updated WG charter

[vijay gill <vgill@vijaygill.com>]

On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 06:36:31PM +0100, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:

> 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.

This is now being worked on.

> > 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...

Routing update validation should be orthogonal to the multihoming
solution.  Also, I am going out on a limb here and say that any
m-homing solution that requires end-host updates is a non-starter
from the get-go.

> > 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?
> 

No, I was just wondering if the solution might not be better worked on
in IDR rather than here. I don't particularly care where, as long
as we have a workable solution somewhere.

/vijay