Re: [MEXT] Reviews of draft-korhonen-mext-mip6-altsec

"Alper Yegin" <alper.yegin@yegin.org> Wed, 20 October 2010 12:37 UTC

Return-Path: <alper.yegin@yegin.org>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E2D73A6768 for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 05:37:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.576
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.576 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.202, BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT=1.449, SARE_FWDLOOK=1.666, SARE_LWFORWARD=1.11, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wSTw6EYtS9TI for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 05:37:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.195]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 787423A6931 for <mext@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 05:37:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ibm (dsl.static.85-105-43069.ttnet.net.tr [85.105.168.61]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus3) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0LymTv-1Oc9WD2D7X-015hhw; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 08:38:54 -0400
From: Alper Yegin <alper.yegin@yegin.org>
To: 'Sri Gundavelli' <sgundave@cisco.com>, 'marcelo bagnulo braun' <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>, mext@ietf.org
References: <4CB69A0A.2030503@it.uc3m.es> <C8DC72CF.63CC%sgundave@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <C8DC72CF.63CC%sgundave@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 15:38:38 +0300
Message-ID: <016e01cb7053$c16b9200$4442b600$@yegin>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: ActrtlHA4+AG8j/wzEOGiOYcqCYPZgEnNdWA
Content-Language: en-us
X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:Ns9HT6QgXZFRYizS+LFJUsdi4fy6TBum9gsTDL/4DGm pKiUj0wedT6c+7HqWQKtPM+7PJhVENA02V8DV7N6r7Tp19zEwK QN091D3pxtEQCWgQUyeJ3fxxGQBL+X5L2t4pPFWjnzn0557Xgw Ud6PH9/vfFl23VS9XlpgIcZVj45uam5rSbC7T2GeIl26Dcxheg C0Tzq2Kyd4QMoRpbIFrTNdLk6JccwUC8CMFQKvmSCY=
Cc: 'Jari Arkko' <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
Subject: Re: [MEXT] Reviews of draft-korhonen-mext-mip6-altsec
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 12:37:28 -0000

Sri,


> Secondly, for Auth-Opt to be considered an alternative security
> mechanism,
> since that is some what black listed with that famous IESG note, will
> it be
> a demotion or a promotion to get that under this Experimental standard,
> from
> informational standard with a red dot. :)

Good point.

When a vendor, operator, or SDO look at the picture, if they don't want to
use IPsec, what would it mean if one alternative is informational (with some
IESG note) and one or more others are experimental? How would the
experimental vs informational status play into it?

> Just curious, we will surely have excellent interoperability between
> vendors. Its better to put few forward looking statements around this
> work,
> else it will confuse the hell out of every one.

I think so too.

Alper




> 
> 
> Sri
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/13/10 10:50 PM, "marcelo bagnulo braun" <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>
> wrote:
> 
> >
> >   great, thanks!
> >
> > El 14/10/10 1:19, Vijay Devarapalli escribió:
> >> I can review the document (in a week or two).
> >>
> >> Vijay
> >>
> >> On 9/23/10 12:30 PM, Laganier, Julien wrote:
> >>> Folks,
> >>>
> >>> The chairs have received a request from the authors of
> >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-korhonen-mext-mip6-altsec  that
> >>> their draft be adopted as one of the WG deliverables for our
> >>> "alternative security mechanisms" work item.
> >>>
> >>> Before we go ahead with this, the chairs would like to solicit at
> >>> least three thorough review of the document to ensure that the has
> an
> >>> adequate understanding of the proposal and its implications.
> >>>
> >>> Please support the WG process by volunteering as a reviewer.
> >>>
> >>> --julien&  marcelo
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> MEXT mailing list
> >>> MEXT@ietf.org
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> MEXT mailing list
> >> MEXT@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > MEXT mailing list
> > MEXT@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MEXT mailing list
> MEXT@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext