Re: [DNA] No FastRA unless Landmark? (draft-pentland-dna-protocol-00)

[Greg Daley <greg.daley@eng.monash.edu.au>]

Hi James,

James Kempf wrote:
>>The FastRA method should have been a seperate draft, unless we are going
> 
> to
> 
>>have a single DNA solution.
>>
> 
> 
> Right, so what is planned on this? Is there going to be a discussion about
> whether more than one solution is needed? Whether people want more than one?
> Currently, I believe we have two.


I believed that at the last IETF the rough consensus was that
there will eventually be one solution, which must be selected
by the WG (with expertise from the DT to assist).

There's only one solutions document on the charter of the WG.

So I guess I don't see the need for a separate 'Fast RA'
document at the moment.

That's not to say that draft-pentland-dna-protocol is the
complete solution just because Hash Based FastRA is defined there
(for example).

The Fast RA scheme is sound regardless of whether landmarks or
completeRA are used.


Greg