Re: [Mip6] MIP6 WG meeting at IETF61

 In your previous mail you wrote:

   If you would like a timeslot on the MIP6 WG agenda, please send
   a request to the chairs. Include in the request:

=> I have two requests (already presented but not discussed enough
so no decission was taken):

-------------------------------- FIRST --------------------------------

   1. Discussion Topic

=> use of IPsec to protect signaling between MN and CN

   2. Draft Name

=> draft-dupont-mipv6-cn-ipsec-01.txt

   3. Slot Duration

=> 5 minutes (1 minute presentation, 4 minutes discussion)

   4. Is this in the scope of the Charter? (if not explain the relation)

=> quoting the charter: "Mechanisms using a shared secret Key/Security
Association will be considered."

   5. What do you want to accomplish by this presentation
      (e.g resolve the following issues)

=> make the draft a WG item and/or what is missing in it.

   6. Was this draft discussed in the mailing list

=> not enough!

   7. Are there any open issues?

=> none (note I implemented it)

-------------------------------- SECOND --------------------------------

   1. Discussion Topic

=> care-of address test procedure using a state cookie

   2. Draft Name

=> Annex of draft-dupont-mipv6-cn-ipsec-01.txt
(note I am extracting it to make a stand-alone document, an XML version
should be available soon)

   3. Slot Duration

=> 5 minutes (3 minutes presentation, 2 minutes to find someone else
who needs it)

   4. Is this in the scope of the Charter? (if not explain the relation)

=> same argument (Mechanisms using a shared secret Key/Security
Association will be considered): these mechanisms don't provide
a built-in care-of address test.

   5. What do you want to accomplish by this presentation
      (e.g resolve the following issues)

=> find someone else (i.e., another alternative to the RR procedure)
who (which) needs it and very shortly discussed if the solution is good
or can be improved.

   6. Was this draft discussed in the mailing list

=> not enough, in particular I don't know who share my feeling
that to initiate the care-of address test by the CN is good.

   7. Are there any open issues?

=> IANA considerations (so a WG document status should be fine)

Regard

Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr

_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
Mip6@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6