Subject: Re: [MOBILE-IP] nai draft

From: "Lipford, Mark" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 16:38:20 -0600

Experimental or proposed,  believe this will be the only NAI solution
available in the foreseeable future.  After attending the AAA WG meeting the
timelines that TR45.6 was wanting for the new protocol do not seem
realistic.  We will need to use the RFC regardless of its classification.  I
would prefer to see it as proposed instead of experimental for the simple
fact that as a carrier we view "experimental" as something that stays in the
lab, or with VERY limited deployment.  Not something we rely on in our
network.

                -----Original Message-----
                From:   Roberts Phil-QA3445
[mailto:[email-masked]]
                Sent:   Friday, November 12, 1999 10:42 AM
                To:     [email-masked]
                Subject:        [MOBILE-IP] nai draft

                I talked to Dave O yesterday about a request for
reclassification of the NAI
                draft to proposed std.  He said just let him know and he'd
bring it back to
                the IESG.  He also wanted to know what our response was to
the AAA issue.  I
                thought I'd put this on the list before, but can't find it,
so my apologies
                for holding things up.  Here's what the initial reasoning
from the IESG was
                on using experimental rather than proposed:

                At any rate, the logic behind experimental was that pending
the
                architectural designs of the AAA protocols being done by the
AAA WG, it may
                turn out that a better approach for NAI in mobile IP would
be a non-opaque
                token that could be used or otherwise operated on by a
home/foreign agent,
                rather than a pure opaque token that can only be useful to
the AAA server.
                For that reason it seemed prudent to not prejudge the
technical tradeoffs by
                putting NAI straight on the track to draft standard. It can
always be moved
                from experimental to proposed/draft once there is high
confidence that we
                won't change direction.

                I'd like to hear some response from the working group to
this before I
                compose a request for reclassification.  My thinking is that
the nai is
                somewhat orthogonal to the objection raised above.

                Comments?

                Phil