Subject: RE: [Mipshop] MIPSHOP discussion on new items and milestones

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 16:51:05 -0600

Hi Gabriel,

A few comments below:

>Folks,
>
>Thanks for the excellent exchange so far. At this point, based on what I've
>seen, I'd like to share with you how I'm seeing things.
>
>
>MN-AR security
>	seems like there is sufficient interest and this item is
>	narrow enough to warrant further work on the SeND key
>	reuse method as well as to develop a AAA-based solution.
>	Whereas we believe there may be some IPR-issues to clarify
>	with the SeND based approach (in spite of Jim's interpretation)
>	we don't have the same clarity with respect to the AAA approach.
>	Please come forward with your IPR disclosures on this. This is not
>	optional.
>	
>	looking at 2 PS documents.

The primary driver for MN-AR security is for fast handoffs. So given
that I am not sure if it makes sense that the FMIPv6 protocol is
experimental, yet one of the components of the overall handover
solution (MN-AR security) is a proposed standard. Unless I am missing
the driver for MN-AR security???

>
>FMIPv6 itself
>	I'd postpone this item given that we don't have a clear understandiung
>	of what the exact relationship with DNA, CARD, 802.21 and the
>	forthcoming 
>	neighborhood discovery is (and heck, there's even a proposal for dhcp).
>	I'm inclined not to include it for now
>	until we know more, and look into it again until a few months have
>	gone by and we have a better grasp of the security and the discovery
>	portions. The former to continue here, the latter to continue elsewhere
>	(e.g., mobopts).

Agreed that there are a number of other pieces such as the ones you
note above. However what does that have to do with moving the base
FMIPv6 itself forward to PS? Based on some implementation experience I
think it would be worthwhile to consider taking up the task of moving
this forward to PS. All the surrounding stuff (DNA, CARD etc.) can
proceed in their respective WGs without necessarily affecting the
progression of FMIPv6 base.

>
>FMIP-over-cdma
>	This experimental document is a useful exercise to better understand
>	deployment considerations and the above issues. It's also good in that
>	it encourages another SDO to seriously think about this, even if it is
>	in a preliminary manner (I don't believe they have firms and urgent
>	deployment plans). I have heard of at least two groups of folks in
>	the working group interested in this. You know who you are, and you
>	should work together on one document. Highly desirable: go through the
>	regular channels (ietf liaisons) and produce a document from 3GPP2
>	on this subject.
>
>	looking at one informational document

Why is there a necessity for a liaison from 3GPP2 to do this? I dont
know if there was a liaison from IEEE when the FMIPv6 for 802.11 was
done. I think it makes sense to work on this document irrespective of
3GPP2 interest or liaison statement.

>
>MN-MAP security for HMIPv6
>	I'd like to think that such an item could be included, but we
>	do need to see a draft on this subject in very short
>	order. Conceptually, it does not seem a much more difficult
>	problem than MN-AR security, so depending on how quickly the
>	relevant draft can be produced, this could be entertained. It
>	seems to me	that without this piece in place, talking
>	about other HMIP work in MIPSHOP is premature (but it should
>	continue elsewhere). Like FMIP, other work could be taken on later on.
>
>	perhaps (if a first solid draft appears shortly) one PS document
>

So do you see this draft as a precursor to making HMIPv6 a Proposed
standard? Dont necessarily think that there is a normative reference
at this time.

>
>RO issues
>	Not clear how much of EBU is new and how much is just further
>	language on rfc 3775. At any rate, it does seem like a
>	CGA-based scheme could be worked on (heck, the basic concept
>	has been around for ages), using omip as a starting
>	point. Highly desirable: go through the ietf channels and
>	using the proper liaisons obtain a message from the SDOs
>	reputedly interested in this item. This document would have
>	the precondition for CBA (authenticated notification of CoA
>	change to the CN). Ideally, we'd have a very simple CBA scheme
>	in place as well.  Both of these mechanism would be optional
>	(i.e., we're not in the business of replacing RR). 
>
>	looking at one PS document.
>	
>
>This gives us a lot already, perhaps too much:
>	(up to) 4 PS documents (perhaps 3)
>	1 informational document
>

Some heavy lifting to be done no doubt :) But maybe some
prioritization would make it easier to take on the work...

>I don't think we want to take on any more load for now. As we complete
>items, we will look into it (as we are doing now).
>
>This may not be everybody's favorite list, but hopefully it works
>reasonably well (or at least *maximizes the distribution of
>unhappiness*, as Brian put it at the plenary). 
>
>comments? close enough, way off?

I think its a good start. I am still not sure why the WG would be
shying away from standardizing (to PS) protocols that have been done
in this WG (F/HMIPv6). I think it would be a natural progression of
the RFCs generated by the WG in the past. 

>-gabriel

-Basavaraj

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

---

From: gabriel montenegro <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 15:31:52 -0800

> the driver for MN-AR security???

Raj,

I see in your message the same misunderstanding. I never suggested
we would not move FMIP to PS. The MN-AR security documents are there precisely
to enable that, yes.

> progression of FMIPv6 base.

never said we're not progressing FMIPv6 to PS. i'm just suggesting that
more work may need to happen before so, as per other threads on this alias.

> 3GPP2 interest or liaison statement.

it's tiring to have folks misinterpret text so regularly.
this is what i wrote (which is in the above snippet):

	Highly desirable

Is there any confusion about the meaning of that phrase? perhaps
you just missed it?

> standard? 

Yes.
Just like MN-AR security is *a* precondition for FMIPv6 to PS,
it seems to me like a corresponding MN-MAP document is *a* precondition
for HMIPv6 PS.

> Dont necessarily think that there is a normative reference
> at this time.

not sure how to interpret this, could you please explain?

> prioritization would make it easier to take on the work...

prioritization is what i'm suggesting. e.g., once we define
milestones, there is no mechanism to prioritize amongst
official WG milestones. the prioritization mechanism i can
see is: when some milestones are done or well advanced,
feed new ones into the list of official WG milestones.

...
> shying away from standardizing (to PS) protocols 

i hope this confusion is clear now...

...

-gabriel

---

From: Rajeev Koodli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 17:20:24 -0800

> feed new ones into the list of official WG milestones.
I can see the base EXP specs and their security counterpart docs moving
together as one way to achieve this prioritization.

-Rajeev