Re: [MEXT] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mext-mip6-tls-01.txt

Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 13 September 2011 14:27 UTC

Return-Path: <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E323921F8880 for <mext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 07:27:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.077, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 muzjRKooV3Em for <mext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 07:26:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 921B721F84C2 for <mext@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 07:26:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wyg24 with SMTP id 24so631470wyg.31 for <mext@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 07:29:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=vWkS+LqaaPoMe1YxQNGzfIxsTXw6ZU8wGxjTL8wi3GQ=; b=l6GEW4EANTmycpBWMBaH21xa+Zqde1QHtNZDDd4WwCiGU4lmA85DYbHTedX9jemVRi 7p8ciLaSRxgO6Ycgl3YpdeXQl9S5wym6knyP/w7wbr6vmMKvCfZVfksiydHAMBZp71hN fhFtr+kfNRbgNZ4lle8nbAKIO+afl2A7ljd6s=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.227.151.66 with SMTP id b2mr1126095wbw.44.1315924144104; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 07:29:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.227.27.141 with HTTP; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 07:29:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20110913092210.8622.94957.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <20110913092210.8622.94957.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 07:29:03 -0700
Message-ID: <CAE_dhjvMZ+GijvRA4=F526H3HbJCHMiwBOOMoMorLyeNUFOa6A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
To: mext@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [MEXT] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mext-mip6-tls-01.txt
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 14:27:10 -0000

I don' t think either of these statements are appropriate:

- "The IPsec/IKEv2 based security architectures makes implementation
and deployment of the protocol infeasible for numerous reasons."

It has been implemented, thus it is factually incorrect to state that
implementation is infeasible.

- "This document updates RFC 6275 and proposes an alternate security framework."

No, it does not. This document is not on the standard track.

--julien

On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 2:22 AM,  <internet-drafts@ietf.org> wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Mobility EXTensions for IPv6 Working Group of the IETF.
>
>        Title           : Transport Layer Security-based Mobile IPv6 Security Framework for Mobile Node to Home Agent Communication
>        Author(s)       : Jouni Korhonen
>                          Basavaraj Patil
>                          Hannes Tschofenig
>                          Dirk Kroeselberg
>        Filename        : draft-ietf-mext-mip6-tls-01.txt
>        Pages           : 38
>        Date            : 2011-09-13
>
>   RFC 6275 Mobile IPv6 signaling between the mobile node and home agent
>   is secured using IPsec.  The security association between a mobile
>   node and the home agent is established using IKEv1 or IKEv2.  The
>   security model specified for Mobile IPv6, which relies on IKE/IPsec,
>   requires interaction between the Mobile IPv6 protocol part of the IP
>   stack and the IKE/IPsec part of the IP stack.  The IPsec/IKEv2 based
>   security architectures makes implementation and deployment of the
>   protocol infeasible for numerous reasons.  This document updates RFC
>   6275 and proposes an alternate security framework, which relies on
>   Transport Layer Security for establishing keying material and other
>   bootstrapping parameters required to protect Mobile IPv6 signaling
>   and data traffic between the mobile node and home agent.
>
>
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mext-mip6-tls-01.txt
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
> This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mext-mip6-tls-01.txt
> _______________________________________________
> I-D-Announce mailing list
> I-D-Announce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>