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

Hi Marcelo,

  From SDO point of view, I think that WiMAX already adopted RFC 4285 
(Authentication option) and
3GPP is happy with IPSec. 

This new experimental security mechanism is looking for a place to go. I hope it 
does find one.

Regards,

Behcet

----- Original Message ----
> From: marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>
> To: "Laganier, Julien" <julienl@qualcomm.com>
> Cc: "mext@ietf.org" <mext@ietf.org>; Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
> Sent: Thu, October 14, 2010 12:58:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [MEXT] Reviews of draft-korhonen-mext-mip6-altsec
> 
>   I agree with all Julien stated.
> Just one more comment.
> 
> I  personally would be interested to understand for each new proposed 
> solution,  what would be the interoperability plan with the current 
> solutions. I mean,  it could be as simple as: " we assume that all nodes 
> in the network  implement the new solution", but maybe there is something 
> more into it (e.g.  the HA will support multiple security mechanisms, and 
> the MNs will support  only one).
> I think it would be worth doing the exercise.
> 
> Regards,  marcelo
> 
> El 14/10/10 19:04, Laganier, Julien escribió:
> >  Sri,
> >
> > Sri Gundavelli wrote:
> >>  Marcelo/Julien:
> >>
> >> Clarifying question ?
> >  Sure.
> >
> >> Given that, this (Alternative Security Mechanisms for  MIPv6) is now a
> >> chartered work item under experimental category,  wondering about the
> >> future and the relation of the candidate  solution with two existing 
>security
> >> mechanisms, before we spin one  more.
> > To be exact: we do not spin one more, we are spinning more  experimental 
>mechanisms, to experiment with security model alternatives. There  might be one 
>more, two more, etc. It all depends on what the WG think is worth  experimenting 
>with.
> >
> >> We have IPsec, a normative standard,  Authentication Option, an
> >> informative standard, and hopefully a  perfect new solution as an 
>experimental
> >> standard.
> > To be  exact: RFC 4285 (Authentication option) does not specify an Internet 
>standard of  any kind.
> >
> >> So, what is the evolution plan, if we love this  new experimental
> >> standard and MIP deployments get adopted and phase  out GTP in 3GPP, will 
>this
> >> get promoted to be an informational  standard or a normative standard ? :)
> > Any new experimental RFC that the  WG publish will define an Experimental 
>Protocol for the Internet  community.  It will not specify an Internet standard 
>of any  kind.
> >
> > As a result of the experiment, if one of the proposals is  considered 
>successful we might consider progressing it on the standard  track.
> >
> >> 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. :)
> > Since neither experimental RFCs not  informational RFC defines Internet 
>standard or any kind, there does not seem to  be a huge difference. However from 
>my perspective the experimental status  highlights that an experiment is ongoing 
>and thus that at some point the results  can be evaluated by the community.
> >
> >> 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.
> > Standard wise there is no reason for  anyone to be confused. IPsec remains 
>the standard track, mandatory to implement  security mechanism that guarantees 
>interoperability.
> >
> >  --julien
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MEXT  mailing list
> MEXT@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
> 