Am 19.09.2014 um 16:29 schrieb Michael Thomas:
Punting on one of the hardest problems would be a travesty. There are
plenty of people in IETF that are
plenty smart about this subject; we will never get an opportunity to
do the right thing again if we loose
this into the wild and say "figure it out yourself." We know what
happens then.
That was not my point. I'm totally happy with having a standardized way
of doing this but I don't think that HNCP is the place where it should
be defined since we will probably not be the only user. Don't get me
wrong if we or anyone else comes up with a brilliant solution I'm all up
for referencing it and using it. For HNCP itself what is more important
to define in my mind is choosing the crypto-mechanism or at least I
would separate those two discussions.
The other point is, it doesn't matter how technically brilliant the
solution is in the end if the user experience isn't good enough and that
is outside our control really. Adding to that judging from experience
with consumer-oriented hardware, if we get HNCP adopted then the
baseline of products will probably support no-auth or maybe PSK if we
are lucky unless we actually forbid unencrypted HNCP and / or
PSK-secured HNCP and I'm not sure I personally would want to go there
really.
Cheers,
Steven
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
