Subject: [mobile-ip] draft-ietf-mobileip-ipv6-14.txt

From: "Charles E. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2001 00:06:08 -0700

Hello folks,

I believe that most of the current issues with Mobile IPv6 are
resolved at least to the point of some local equilibrium --
except, of course, that we still do not know how to evaluate
security design decisions.  Thus, I have supplied a newly
revised text to be distributed.  It is also available at the
following URL:
	http://people.nokia.net/charliep/txt/mobilev6/mobilev6.txt

The new text is improved (thanks to Ken and T.J. and Mattias)
from the drafty version publicized a couple of weeks ago.
No major comments about the reduced reliance on AH were received,
and so I thought that the newly specified structure for the
Binding Update option was acceptable.  If not, I'll happily
make whatever changes are required, including going back to
a design which relies on AH.

There is one unsatisfied citation -- namely, the citation for
the as yet unidentifiable key distribution draft.  The Mobile IPv6
draft is completely neutral on this subject; there is only the
(currently false) assumption that some key distribution draft
does exist.

Other changes include the new Mobile Prefix Advertisement
message for distributing prefix information to roaming mobile
nodes whenever necessary, and a scheduling algorithm for that.
Please consult the "Changes" section of the appendix for a more
complete list.

Comments are welcome as always; please send editorial comments to
me directly, and design questions, improvements, and observations
to the list.

Regards,
Charlie P.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 12 Jul 2001 18:13:04 +0200

Hello Charlie,

Regarding the IPSec story, and in order to enlighten my understanding
of where the Mobile-IPv6 protocol is going to, could you please share
your vue on how the -14 draft fits into an earlier proposition by one
of this WG Chairs on "next steps".  IIRC, it was suggested that a
threat model should be first designed, then the 7 proposals should be
compared against this model, then a sort of implementation team will
try to implement and help confirming the chosen proposal.

Have all those steps been included in the decisions taken in your
draft, and if yes could you please share any small set of the
reasonings here?

Please advise, thanks,

Alex