Subject: [Mipshop] .21 MIH solutions

From: "Alper Yegin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 00:18:20 -0700

Going back to our draft-jang-mipshop-nhdisc-00.txt presentation, there were
few issues brought up. We didn't have enough time for detailed discussion on
those during the meeting. It'd be useful to take a look at them.

- Security association end-points:

It was brought up that the proxy model requires an SA between the proxy and
the IS. That's true. Either that, or an SA between the host and the IS is
required if we go with the direct model. IMO, given that the IS may be a
remote server (right?), the latter is harder to realize.

- Privacy:

Direct model where the information elements are end-to-end encrypted
obviously achieve greater privacy. But going back to the previous point, it
is a lot harder to achieve. And we need to consider the value of keeping the
information elements private in the face of this cost. 

- One vs. multiple protocols for CS, ES, and IS:

On the surface using a single protocol is better than using separate
protocols. But the nature of CS and ES appears to be more L2 dependant. For
that, realizing CS and ES over L2 whereas IS over L3 is a plausible
solution. Well, at least we shall not get carried away at IETF since we
think we can do everything at or above L3 :-)

Comments welcome.

Alper

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