Vidya,
>Since then, all the 5 other drafts that were part of the
original
>consensus call have progressed (to varying degrees),
while draft-vidya
>has been held without explanation. We have discussed
potential conflicts
>between draft-ietf-mipshop-handover-key and RFC3972 that
need to be
>resolved before that is an acceptable solution to move
FMIPv6 to a PS.
>We need to discuss the implications of RFC3972 on that
document on the
>list and see what needs to be done, before stating
something along the
>lines of "We have already adopted
draft-ietf-mipshop-handover-key as a
>WG document for the mechanism based on SeND. This is
sufficient for
>advancing FMIPv6 as a proposed standard.", as the
email from the chairs
>presently states.
I think everyone, including Rajeev and myself who are
co-authors on
draft-ietf-mipshop-handover-key, agrees that we need to
resolve any issues
with RFC3972. I took a look at the minutes from the Prague
meeting, and I
could not make head nor tail of Lakshimanth's comments. I do
not know if
that was because the recorder couldn't understand what he
was saying or was
rather because the comments themselves were expressed in a
way that made his
point difficult to understand. We are now trying to get a
clear statement of
what Lakshimnath's concerns are, so that we can address
them, and we will
resolve the issue if there is one.
In addition, as Rajeev's email and my email here and in the
past and my
comments at the microphone during the San Diego meeting have
supported,
everyone is in agreement that we need to adopt an AAA based
mechanism. As
Vijay has stated, there is no harm in polling the WG
periodically about
whether there is still interest in doing a work item. This
is, in fact, a
good idea since it helps determine whether people have lost
interest and
therefore to weed out items that are not of interest (for
example, the low
latency work in MIP4 WG, which has lingered there for 5
years with gradually
dwindling, and now zero, interest). I think from the
response so far I
believe that there is strong interest, and I hope
draft-vidya will soon be
submitted as a WG draft. I think this is independent of what
is needed for
advancing FMIP, as Vijay said, but that should not hold up
acceptance of
draft-vidya because people clearly want it.
Finally, I believe Vijay's email brought out the issue of
whether there are
any changes needed in the AAA infrastructure in order to
support
draft-vidya. Recall that such changes (though not large)
were identified
during the bootstrapping design work in MIPv6. So I think
it might be
useful to consider what would be needed to make draft-vidya
work well, and
maybe come up with a list of requirements for the
appropriate AAA WG if
anything is found. Saying that no changes are needed in a
misguided
competition to somehow make the AAA based mechanism look as
or more
attractive than the SEND-based mechanism is really not
helpful . Not that
anybody has made this kind of statement (yet). 
I think the goal of standardizing draft-vidya for an AAA
based mechanism
should be to ensure that there is a well-designed AAA based
mechanism that
covers all the security issues, with recommended changes to
the AAA
infrastructure if necessary.
jak
_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
Mipshop ietf.org
https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop
|