[anonsec] first steps in APIs
miika at iki.fi
Mon Apr 24 23:48:56 PDT 2006
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006, Michael Richardson wrote:
>>>>>> "marcelo" == marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo at it.uc3m.es> writes:
> marcelo> So bottom line is, the commonality comes from these two
> marcelo> characteristics that seems to be available in the differetn
> marcelo> scenarios:
> marcelo> - there are multiple addresses that need to be managed - a
> marcelo> mechanism for failure detection and path exploration is used by
> marcelo> the different protocols and it needs to be tuned/managed
> marcelo> The functions related to such functions can be made common to
> marcelo> all the protocols.
> marcelo> Makes any sense?
> So do you feel that there is any overlap between shim6 and IPsec?
> I think we have two APIs here.
> And that's fine -- decoupling is good.
> The HIP folks have to coordinate twice, but we don't have to come to a
> consensus among three groups.
So, it seeems like we would have two APIs: one for security (IPsec) and
the other one for locators. We'd need consensus between BTNS-HIP and
SHIM6-HIP. It might even make things easier.
If we split things already at this point, it may not make sense to create
"core" drafts. Otherwise, we may end up with too many documents (?):
* locator core
* SHIM6 locator extensions
* HIP locator extensions
* IPsec security core
* BTNS security extensions
* HIP security extensions
On the other hand, this separation might be better for other lower layer
protocols as well. Comments, opinions?
Miika Komu miika at iki.fi http://www.iki.fi/miika/
More information about the ANONSEC