Re: Pekka's comments about HBAs (was Re: Comments on multi6dt documents

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
> > I think there are two big issues:
> >
> >  1) The spec should have a clear section which describes the 
> > assumptions placed upon the features which must be supported in the 
> > multi6 solution. In this particular case, for example, the CGA 
> > Parameter Data Structure needs to be passed to the peers out of 
> > band
>
> what do you mean by out of band?
>
> i mean the CGA_PDS has to be communicates to the other end, but it 
> will be sent in clear through the multi6 protocol. i.e. there is no 
> need to hide the CGA_PDS to obtain the security of HBAs
>
> ok?

That's OK.  I just meant out of band in the sense that how it's done 
is probably external to the HBA protocol itself, it just needs to be 
shared with some mechanism.

> >  2) IPR.  Unfortunately, SEND had IPR; fortunately, RF licensing 
> > was granted for implementations of SEND.  Someone has to figure out 
> > how generic those patent applications were, i.e., whether HBA would 
> > be covered as well.
>
> Agree, but the chairs suggested to first figure out if HBA are good and then 
> go for the IPR stuff, which imho is a good approach

Agree that this is probably a good pragmatic approach.

--
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings