[IPsec] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-mglt-mif-security-requirements-02.txt

Daniel Migault <mglt.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 30 July 2012 04:59 UTC

Return-Path: <mglt.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C65B11E8098; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 21:59:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.552
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.552 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=5.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ptel42S0Lg5N; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 21:59:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19CE711E808D; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 21:59:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obbwc20 with SMTP id wc20so9609513obb.31 for <multiple recipients>; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 21:59:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=zE2BOgMcSpohu0AoLjHeV/XRKjY3/49Dv5K3z1cJR48=; b=hXCXCgwPe/jpwPn+pACfBv8Kyn0AAk5gX+gKZqg4XrAL5cOaY72l3SIDVqXtsh4snN e3DkE87h/RQlOOrjoPaK8fb7ZZCcsJ73sZYxJQhHbX8RYdWcyZk2DlWnIN63mjXDqde1 xTinItLbZzVU6U6GQxNKKYYrVRScCQHoAe1fWckkIQHvnlnHGVRBrb4ap8ia2/op5KAR locmyhwnRAuDbeBhqL15yrS+sE0zuERCFsM1ujz2/mdaKARtU5hA5HrrpIqt7ImuC+Qo PvYnJPY0/olHAEg2zr0mhk1te1RXuy5a5mx0F0wPwKETmu3uzTI6Cd/lvXUgWCem6H2V dnVw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.225.100 with SMTP id rj4mr15428142obc.64.1343624394569; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 21:59:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.182.196.38 with HTTP; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 21:59:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20120730045037.978.65071.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <20120730045037.978.65071.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 06:59:54 +0200
Message-ID: <CADZyTkmGjU+APTA+YJN4jJP9t4zyzg4g=C7=w643jGBpRyFnYA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Daniel Migault <mglt.ietf@gmail.com>
To: mif@ietf.org, ipsec@ietf.org, multipathtcp@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="14dae93993bbbff99004c604eed1"
Subject: [IPsec] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-mglt-mif-security-requirements-02.txt
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipsec>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 04:59:56 -0000

Please find the new version of IPsec security requirements with Multiple
Interfaces.

Comments and suggestions are welcome

BR

Daniel

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 6:50 AM
Subject: New Version Notification for
draft-mglt-mif-security-requirements-02.txt
To: mglt.ietf@gmail.com
Cc: carlw@mcsr-labs.org



A new version of I-D, draft-mglt-mif-security-requirements-02.txt
has been successfully submitted by Daniel Migault and posted to the
IETF repository.

Filename:        draft-mglt-mif-security-requirements
Revision:        02
Title:           IPsec Multiple Interfaces Requirements
Creation date:   2012-07-30
WG ID:           Individual Submission
Number of pages: 16
URL:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mglt-mif-security-requirements-02.txt
Status:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mglt-mif-security-requirements
Htmlized:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mglt-mif-security-requirements-02
Diff:
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-mglt-mif-security-requirements-02

Abstract:
   Multiple Interface Nodes (MIF Nodes) may use their Multiple
   Interfaces to perform Mobility, Multihoming.  Then, these MIF Nodes
   may also manage traffic between these Multiple Interfaces.  Because
   IPsec has not been designed for Multiple Interfaces, MIF Nodes have
   difficulties to benefit from MIF features with IPsec protected
   communications.

   This document provides use cases where IPsec protected communications
   would take advantage of MIF features.  From these uses cases, we
   identify the different IPsec features MIF Nodes would require.  Then,
   we expose the limitations of the IPsec related protocols IKEv2 and
   MOBIKE regarding to these MIF features before listing the MIF IPsec
   Security Requirements that should be address by a extension of IKEv2
   or MOBIKE.




The IETF Secretariat



-- 
Daniel Migault
Orange Labs -- Security
+33 6 70 72 69 58