Subject: [Mipshop] IETF 69 MISHOP Minutes

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 22:43:49 -0700

Hello folks,

Here are the draft minutes for the MIPSHOP meeting at IETF 69. Thanks to 
Juan Carlos Zuniga and Gabor Bajko for taking the notes.

Please let us know if there are any corrections.

Vijay & Stefano
IETF 68 MIPSHOP WG Meeting Minutes 
----------------------------------
Note takers: Juan Carlos Zuniga and Gabor Bajko

1. Agenda review

2. WG status and I-Ds update

   draft-ietf-mipshop-fmipv6-rfc4068bis-02
     Completed WG last call. Waiting on the handover keys document. There will 
     be a new revision before sending the document to the IESG.

   draft-ietf-mipshop-handover-key-00
     An issue on the use of CGA key for encrypting the handover key
     A proposal for a work-around

   draft-ietf-mipshop-3gfh-03
     Considering an LS to 3GPP2 to figure out their interest in this draft

   draft-ietf-mipshop-fh80216e-02
     Received reviews from 16ng WG
     WG last call soon

   draft-ietf-mipshop-4140bis-00
     Updated to reflect the use of IKEv2 between the MN and the MAP
     WG last call after the IETF meeting

   draft-ietf-mipshop-mis-ps-02
     Will be sent to the IESG for publication soon.

   MIH Solution
     Design Team very behind schedule
     Change of editor
     An update will be available this meeting

3. Fast Handovers for Mobile IPv6 (FMIPv6)
   Rajeev Koodli

Changes to the draft from the last version were presented.
No comments received during the presentation. A new version will be generated
based on the comments received during the WG last call.

4. Distributing a Symmetric FMIPv6 Handover Key using SEND 
   Rajeev Koodli

Rajeev presented a new mechanism to use another key pair to encrypt the 
handover key.

Hesham: Why use another RSA instead of a symmetric key encryption?

Rajeev: Same RSA must not be used

Hesham: don't use another public/private key pair, use a symmetric key. 
How to generate a symmetric key? 

Vijay: This would need extending the spec to carry this information

Hesham: Piggyback or use fmip6 signalling (both require additions to the 
spec). with SEND: piggyback neighbour discovery.

Greg: computational overhead for symmetric is smaller than for the 
public/private pairs, It makes sense to have symmetric keys

Rajeev: This is not done on a per packet basis

Hesham: Frequent handovers can happen

Vijay: Lets move on. Let’s get this done in the next two weeks

Jim Bound: Nobody has used CGA. I don't like FMIPv6 being dependent on CGA.

Vijay: We are standardizing two options, CGA and shared keys based on the 
AAA infrastructure. We still need to pick a document for the AAA based 
FMIPv6 handover keys.

Alper: CGA vs AAA, Can we mandate one vs the other?

Vijay: Shared secret is needed for FMIPv6 to work. How the secret gets there, 
that is still open.

Rajeev: We should show that there is at least one mechanism to do it in order 
to move forward on FMIPv6.

5. Fast handovers for PMIPv6
   Hidetoshi Yokota 

Vijay: Fast Handovers for PMIPv6, Not sure whether this work will be in NETLMM
or MIPSHOP

Hidetoshi presented the details of the draft.

Hesham: Is sending the info to LMA that different? AR could be further away 
than the LMA

Vijay: The assumption is that ARs are closer to each other than the LMA to the
AR.

Hesham: Should it be separate documents for fast handovers and context 
transfer?

Hidetoshi: Context transfer is tightly coupled

Hesham: That doesn’t mean that they need to be in the same document

Rajeev: Forwarding an existing session is a problem. How do you exchange info 
between router is another problem. You could specify them in different section

Frank: NETLMM is a better place

Vijay: We should not worry about this now, since the decision will be taken 
with consulting the NETLMM chairs and the AD.

6. FMIPv6 on Point-to-Point Links
   Frank Xia

Frank presented details about FMIPv6 using PtP links

Vijay: I still want to see what is missing regarding PtP links

Frank: Prefix management “could” be an issue

Vijay: I thought that it was already included in draft

Frank: NAR not PMR

Rajeev: If MN configures address, it can still get prefix through the FBack
We can put what makes sense in base draft, but not clear what the base spec 
needs to do

7. FMIPv6 over 802.16e links
   Heejin Jang

Heejin presented details of the draft.

Rajeev: What is an AR in the 16e model? WiMAX discussion could be captured 
in an appendix. Work needs to be coordinated with PtP draft.

8. MIH Design Team Update
   Telemaco Melia

Telemaco presented an update on MIH-DT discussions and where they are.

Alper: Are these real scenarios?, could MoSh(?) provide ES/CS?

Juan Carlos: ES/CS local and IS remote is a viable scenario

Alper: How about DHCP for IS?

Tele: You need to make the IS available to the DHCP server

Gabor: DHCP is for configuration, not for transport of information

Vijay: Take this discussion to the list

9. MIH Transport protocol considerations
   David Griffith

David Griffith gave a brief description of their work
Performance evaluation of L3 transport protocols for 802.21. Graphs to be
discussed in MOBOPTS

Lars: Are you changing the TCP RTO?

David: No.

10. AAA based handover keys for FMIPv6
   Chairs

Vijay: Standardization of AAA to generate HO keys for FMIPv6. There are 
four options available. Details in slides.

Vidya: I don’t understand option 4

Jari: We had consensus about AAA keying, but now we have an option to 
do/not do it. Option 4 should be valid if no one wants to work on the 
draft and edit a particular draft.

Suresh: (missed comment)

Rajeev: Did we not have consensus on doing this work?

Vijay: Only 6 people replied and no one volunteered to do the work

Vidya: We should not ask the question again

Jari: It seems like we need to keep option 1 and remove option 4

Alper: There is interest for the other options

Yoshi: HOKEY is missing the transport protocol

Jari: We can’t take a decision. We need to do the work and then take a 
consensus call

11. Next Steps
    Chairs

WG last calls soon on draft-ietf-mipshop-4140bis-00 and 
draft-ietf-mipshop-fh80216e-02

draft-ietf-mipshop-mis-ps-02 and draft-ietf-mipshop-fmipv6-rfc4068bis-02 
will be sent to the IESG soonSeND-based handover keys draft

WG last call after the work-around solution is reviewed

Solicit reviews on draft-ietf-mipshop-3gfh-02 and figure out 3GPP2 interest 
in this document

Publish first version MIH solution document soon

Resolve the situation on handover keys using AAA

Figure out where the work on FMIPv6 extensions to PMIPv6 fits

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