Subject: [Mipshop] Gauging interest in official WG adoption of IDs

From: "Faccin, Stefano M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 09:51:53 -0700

Hi,

Last week during the mipshop meeting we talked about 2 potential drafts
up for adoption as official WG drafts. 

So the question to the WG is: should we adopt the following documents as
official WG items (based on the individual drafts as noted below)?

- draft-haddad-mipshop-hmipv6-security-04

- draft-arkko-mipshop-cga-cba-04.txt

Please send comments one way or another through August 8, 2006.

Thanks,

Stefano M. Faccin

Mobility Group - Technology & Standards

Mobility Wireless Group

Intel Corporation

+1 408 966 2334

[email-masked]

  <http://www.intel.com/> 

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

---

From: "Alper Yegin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 10:26:28 -0700

Stefano,

Regarding the HMIPv6 security solution. Can you conform whether the WG is
open to consider alternative solutions even after one (below) is accepted as
a WG document? Or, has the WG decided to pick one solution and stop there?

Alper

  _____  

From: Faccin, Stefano M [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:52 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Mipshop] Gauging interest in official WG adoption of IDs

Hi,

Last week during the mipshop meeting we talked about 2 potential drafts up
for adoption as official WG drafts. 

Thanks,

Stefano M. Faccin

Mobility Wireless Group

Intel Corporation

+1 408 966 2334

 <http://www.intel.com/>

---

From: gabriel montenegro <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 13:10:38 -0700 (PDT)

In general, I recommend looking at the charter to determine what the WG already decided.
 
HMIPv6-bis addresses this to some extent, as Hesham is adding clarifying text on how
to use IPsec, and the draft below talks about another solution. If there are more solutions,
the draft below is the place to define them. Hopefully, we'll have only one in the draft below (not necessarily 
the starting point), cuz having multiple mechanisms is less preferable, in my opinion.
 
It is, after all, a draft that is supposed to address *HMIPv6 security* as per our
charter, not necessarily a draft to publish this solution exclusively. This solution is only a starting
point, but the real deliverable in the charter is "MN-MAP security" (and in the milestones "HMIPv6
security"). 
 
We have a deliverable for HMIPv6 security, so that document should reflect the WG decision.
 
Of course, even after we publish this, there's always the 
chance to recharter...
 
-gabriel

----- Original Message ----
From: Alper Yegin <[email-masked]>
To: "Faccin, Stefano M" <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 10:26:28 AM
Subject: RE: [Mipshop] Gauging interest in official WG adoption of IDs

Stefano,
 
Regarding the HMIPv6 security solution… Can you conform whether the WG is open to consider alternative solutions even after one (below) is accepted as a WG document? Or, has the WG decided to pick one solution and stop there?
 
Alper

Hi,
Last week during the mipshop meeting we talked about 2 potential drafts up for adoption as official WG drafts. 
 
So the question to the WG is: should we adopt the following documents as official WG items (based on the individual drafts as noted below)?
- draft-haddad-mipshop-hmipv6-security-04
- draft-arkko-mipshop-cga-cba-04.txt

Thanks,
 
Stefano M. Faccin

---

From: "Alper Yegin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 15:26:57 -0700

Hi Gabriel,

My comments inlined.

In general, I recommend looking at the charter to determine what the WG
already decided.
 
HMIPv6-bis addresses this to some extent, as Hesham is adding clarifying
text on how
to use IPsec, and the draft below talks about another solution. If there are
more solutions,
the draft below is the place to define them. Hopefully, we'll have only one
in the draft below (not necessarily 
the starting point), cuz having multiple mechanisms is less preferable, in
my opinion.
 
Alper>>> OK, I see. But than probably it is better to rename the document.
It is called " Using Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA) to secure
HMIPv6 Protocol (HMIPv6sec)" now. A generic name like "HMIPv6 Security" is
better unless we want to tie the document to this specific (CGA-based)
solution. 

It is, after all, a draft that is supposed to address *HMIPv6 security* as
per our
charter, not necessarily a draft to publish this solution exclusively. This
solution is only a starting
point, but the real deliverable in the charter is "MN-MAP security" (and in
the milestones "HMIPv6
security"). 
 
We have a deliverable for HMIPv6 security, so that document should reflect
the WG decision.

Alper>>> I'm specifically interested in a solution that is AAA-based. Much
like what we did in
http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-yegin-eap-boot-rfc3118-01.txt for
securing DHCP. Was such an approach ever discussed?

Thanks.

Alper

-gabriel
----- Original Message ----
From: Alper Yegin <[email-masked]>
To: "Faccin, Stefano M" <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 10:26:28 AM
Subject: RE: [Mipshop] Gauging interest in official WG adoption of IDs
 
Stefano,
 
Regarding the HMIPv6 security solution… Can you conform whether the WG is
open to consider alternative solutions even after one (below) is accepted as
a WG document? Or, has the WG decided to pick one solution and stop there?
 
Alper

________________________________________
From: Faccin, Stefano M [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:52 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Mipshop] Gauging interest in official WG adoption of IDs
 
Hi,

 
Thanks,
 
Stefano M. Faccin