Subject: [Mip6] Request to process WG I-D: draft-ietf-mip6-cn-ipsec-02.txt on standards track

From: Basavaraj Patil <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 14:34:19 -0500

Hello Jari,

The MIP6 WG I-D:  draft-ietf-mip6-cn-ipsec-02.txt, "Using IPsec
between Mobile and Correspondent IPv6 Nodes" has completed WG last
call in March, 06.

The I-D is now ready for IESG review and to be progressed as a
standards track document.

-Raj

============================================

1) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the ID and do
   they believe this ID is sufficiently baked to forward to the IESG
   for publication?

   Yes.

2) Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members and
   key non-WG members? Do you have any concerns about the depth or
   breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

   Sufficient.

3) Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a
   particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational
   complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)?

   No concerns about the need for broader or additional reviews.
   
4) Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that
   you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of? For example,
   perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the document,
   or whether there really is a need for it, etc., but at the same
   time these issues have been discussed in the WG and the WG has
   indicated it wishes to advance the document anyway.

   None.
   
5) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?  Does it
   represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
   being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with
   it?

   Consensus about an alternative mechanism to Return routability for
   securing the route optimization messages exists.

6) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
   discontent?  If so, please summarize what are they upset about.

   No.
   
7) Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to _all_ of the
   ID nits?  (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-nits.html).

   Yes.
   
8) Does the document a) split references into normative/informative,
   and b) are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not
   also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
   (Note: the RFC editor will not publish an RFC with normative
   references to IDs, it will delay publication until all such IDs are
   also ready for publication as RFCs.)

   Yes.

9) For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval
   announcement includes a writeup section with the following
   sections:

   - Technical Summary

   The I-D defines how IPsec can be used for securing the MIP6
   (RFC3775) route optimization messages between an MN and CN. Return
   routability testing (RRT) is the default method for MIP6 to enable route
   optimization. This I-D proposes a mechanism that can be used when
   an IPsec SA between the MN and CN exists instead of RRT.
   
   - Working Group Summary

   The I-D has been presented to the WG and discussed in WG meetings
   in 2005. While there is not an overwhelming need for such a
   solution, it does provide an alternative especially when there
   exists an IPsec SA between the MN and CN.

   - Protocol Quality

   The I-D only defines how IPsec can be used for securing the RO
   messages and no new protocol is defined.

     - is the protocol already being implemented?

     No.

     - have a significant number of vendors indicated they plan to
       implement the spec?

       No.
  
     - are there any reviewers (during the end stages) that merit
       explicit mention as having done a thorough review that resulted
       in important changes or a conclusion that the document was fine
       (except for maybe some nits?)

       No.

_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 22:17:24 +0300

All,

The chairs and I reviewed the status of the working group
last week, and during that review it came apparent that
some of the drafts that the group has adopted do not
have a matching charter item. For instance, the charter
mentions work on a problem statement for  dual
stack operation but the group is already working on
solutions.  Other examples include cn-ipsec and
location-privacy-ps. There may also be items in the
charter that are no longer interesting, such as a
multicast problem statement.

As a result, I would like to recharter you to keep what
you are working on and the charter in sync. I have
asked the chairs to work on proposed changes, and
once we are happy with them we can discuss the
details on the mailing list. Note that this is not an
open season for adding new work to the charter;
this rechartering focuses only on work that that
the group has already taken on.

Jari

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 16:50:09 +0200

In your previous mail you wrote:

   Other examples include cn-ipsec...

=> I know that everything is a matter of taste but IMHO the cn-ipsec
draft is just a (second) example of this charter item:

    - Route optimization will require security mechanisms for
      trusting and updating the binding information.Return-routability
      is the basic mechanism for route-optimization. Mechanisms using
      a shared secret Key/Security Association will be considered.
                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
      Methods for establishing a security association between the
      mobile node and the correspondent node are out of the scope 
      of the WG.

Regards

[email-masked]

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 00:03:33 +0300

>draft is just a (second) example of this charter item:
Perhaps, or perhaps not. But either way, it would be
great if the charter actually specified clearly what
it means.

--Jari

---

From: Tom Wan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 11:09:19 +0800

All:

I hope you can review my draft. 
It focuses on the problem statement and scenario analysis.
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wan-mip6-nemo-dsanalysis-00.txt

BR Tom