At Sat, 24 Nov 2007 23:23:58 +0100,
Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
I reviewed the document as well.
I got the impression that CGAs are not really going to see larger
deployment anytime soon.
Well, that may be true, but if that's the rationale for this work
it has a number of implications:
1. It casts severe doubt on any proposed future work on CGAs--such
as the CSI BoF being held in YVR.
2. There needs to be some plausible rationale for why HBA won't
suffer the same nondeployment fate as CGA, not just that
HBA has a cooler sounding acronym.
That said, there are a number of ways to do signature-based
binding other than CGA, so I'm not convinced that !CGA -> HBA.
HBA seems to be a simple and lightweight alternative (although I am not
convinced about SHIM6 in general).
In what way is HBA any more lightweight than CGA?
-Ekr
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf