[Mip6] second look at issue 73

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Sun, 08 July 2007 22:10 UTC

Return-path: <mip6-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I7exE-0006Lr-Nu; Sun, 08 Jul 2007 18:10:08 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I7exD-0006LI-Eb for mip6@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Jul 2007 18:10:07 -0400
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([193.234.218.130]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I7ex9-0001UJ-4T for mip6@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Jul 2007 18:10:07 -0400
Received: from p130.piuha.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0AEC19866A; Mon, 9 Jul 2007 01:10:01 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [193.234.218.130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B9D6198646; Mon, 9 Jul 2007 01:10:01 +0300 (EEST)
Message-ID: <469160B9.4020103@piuha.net>
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 01:10:01 +0300
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20070604)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Soliman, Hesham" <Hesham@elevatemobile.com>, Mobile IPv6 Mailing List <mip6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32
Cc:
Subject: [Mip6] second look at issue 73
X-BeenThere: mip6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: mip6.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6>, <mailto:mip6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:mip6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mip6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6>, <mailto:mip6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: mip6-bounces@ietf.org

On Hesham's request I looked at the past discussion relating
to issue 73 (mapped v4 addresses vs. a new option).

Like 93, consensus was thin if it existed at all, and you
probably should have continued the discussion instead
of closing the issue as soon as a one person majority was
detected :-) This working group needs to understand
issues and agree more, and have less divisive consensus
calls that end up resembling voting. I was positively
surprised that we were able to move forward with
issue 93 after all, so lets continue that in future issues.

But back to issue 73. Hesham, I would like you to
implement this functionality through a separate
option, on your AD's request and as a part of
bypassing future issues in AD review. After
reviewing RFC 4083 and RFC-to-be-draft-ietf-
v6ops-security-overview, I believe we should
not introduce additional on-the-wire usage
for v4 mapped addresses where it can be
easily avoided. Even if this usage would be
for something else than the outer IP header.

Jari


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