Hi Yang, Thanks for the explanation, and I do understand the issues with the approval of the IESG, and of course satisfying regulatory domains. I hope that the members take this time to ask questions so the F2F/on line participation will be easier as some of the details can start to be discussed now if members choose to ask, or offer alternatives, or enhancements to your presentation. Anything worth while can always be added at a later time when all of those things that need to be satisfied with the IESG and on going regulatory changes in the world of PAWS with consensus of the members.
Thanks again, Nancy On Oct 24, 2012, at 7:53 PM, Cuiyang wrote: > Hi Nancy, > > Thanks for your kind reminding;-) > I have noticed that a lengthy discussion on the list and at Vancouver on the > security issues. > We are not aimed to rewrite the common agreement that WG has got. > > The previous version of our draft is focused on the authentication and > authorization model, for example, the interaction of master device, database > and FCC. > But the latest version simplifies the models, which provides a solution that > “How database can validate a FCC approved master device”, etc. > It could naturally solve the ID/device revocation problem. > Also, since PSK auth is left out with a concern that IESG may refuse it > without the key provision mechanism, we could try to provide PSK > authentication with proper key provision mechanism. > > All in all, this submission is to discuss the possible threats and solutions > not included in the current WG doc. > > Thanks, > Yang > ================== > Yang Cui, Ph.D. > Huawei Technologies > [email protected] > > 发件人: Nancy Bravin [mailto:[email protected]] > 发送时间: 2012年10月25日 7:39 > 收件人: Cuiyang > 抄送: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > 主题: Re: [paws] F2F session at IETF85 in Atlanta > > Hi Yang, > > It seems to me that when advocating issues that have been agreed upon > otherwise before, at this late date, will need a formal proposal before > any adoption takes place so the members have time to go through your > presentation and again be able to respond via the reflector. > Case in point…certificates/TLS…my recollection is that many discussed this > for a long time and it was not excepted in the proposal. > What is the thought process for changing this now and can you elaborate on > why each area of change, needed or already decided against > is in your presentation asap so there can be a proper proposal timeframe with > members able to give such ideas its due time and questions > on the PAWS reflector starting now, it may be of help to all of us, and in > some cases be a help to the total effort. > > Thanks, > > Nancy > On Oct 23, 2012, at 9:15 PM, Cuiyang wrote: > > > Hi, Gabor and Brian > > We would like to ask for a time slot for introducing our > draft-wu-paws-secutity-01. > > Thanks, > Yang > ================== > Yang Cui, Ph.D. > Huawei Technologies > [email protected] > > > ================== > Yang Cui, Ph.D. > Huawei Technologies > [email protected] > > 发件人: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 代表 > [email protected] > 发送时间: 2012年10月24日 5:32 > 收件人: [email protected] > 主题: Re: [paws] F2F session at IETF85 in Atlanta > > If you would like a timeslot to present in the upcoming F2F, please send a > request to the chairs. > Thanks, Gabor > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bajko > Gabor (Nokia-CIC/SiliconValley) > Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 9:51 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [paws] F2F session at IETF85 in Atlanta > > Folks, > > FYI, I just requested a 2.5 hour session for PAWS at the Atlanta meeting. > > - Gabor > > _______________________________________________ > paws mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
_______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
