Hi glen all, On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 7:56 AM, Glen Zorn <g...@net-zen.net> wrote:
> basavaraj.pa...@nokia.com [mailto:basavaraj.pa...@nokia.com] writes: > > > We had a pretty lengthy discussion about this. The PAA/EP can be > > colocated > > or could be separate. In the case where the PAA/EP are separate, the > > link > > needs to be secured. The conclusion (in the WG) was that the security > > mechanism between the PAA and EP is a choice of the deployment and > > hence > > does not need to be specified. > > That's rather bizarre; the ADs are OK with this? At a time of PANA specification, a huge work happened to simplify the PANA protocol and its companions documents. (see: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pana/current/msg02261.html) We had a proposal based on SNMPv3 ( http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pana-snmp-06) to implement the PAA-to-EP protocol which has been finally rejected as mentionned by Raj. My 2 cents, Best regards, Julien > > > > > > > > but I can't find anything in any document that says how to do this. > > What am > > > I missing? > > > > Does the above explanation help? > > Quite clarifying, thank you. > > > > > -Raj > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Pana mailing list > Pana@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pana >
_______________________________________________ Pana mailing list Pana@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pana
