Re: [Mip6] Next steps for I-D: draft-ietf-mip6-auth-protocol

Alpesh <alpesh@cisco.com> Fri, 22 October 2004 01:33 UTC

Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA25102 for <mip6-web-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 21:33:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CKoVh-0001Cu-3X for mip6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 21:46:30 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CKnLK-0000qG-EJ; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 20:31:42 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CKl6x-0005c2-7l for mip6@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 18:08:43 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA11283 for <mip6@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 18:08:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sj-iport-1-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.70] helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CKlJd-0004mt-CA for mip6@ietf.org; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 18:21:50 -0400
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (171.71.177.238) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Oct 2004 15:18:34 -0700
X-BrightmailFiltered: true
Received: from mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com [171.71.163.14]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i9LM876u021456; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 15:08:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cisco.com (dhcp-128-107-163-246.cisco.com [128.107.163.246]) by mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com (MOS 3.4.5-GR) with ESMTP id AYH04889; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 15:09:15 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <41783345.4050507@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 15:08:05 -0700
From: Alpesh <alpesh@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vijay Devarapalli <vijayd@iprg.nokia.com>
Subject: Re: [Mip6] Next steps for I-D: draft-ietf-mip6-auth-protocol
References: <697DAA22C5004B4596E033803A7CEF4403B1C009@daebe007.americas.nokia.com> <41780AA4.4010405@iprg.nokia.com> <41781014.9060904@cisco.com> <417827C4.9000607@iprg.nokia.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: cf3becbbd6d1a45acbe2ffd4ab88bdc2
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: mip6@ietf.org, Charlie P <charliep@iprg.nokia.com>, Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com
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>
Sender: mip6-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: mip6-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: a8a20a483a84f747e56475e290ee868e
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

cut and paste :)

    <t>
    The MN SHOULD use NAI option <xref target= "NAI_opt"/> to
    enable the Home Agent to make use of available AAA
    infrastructure which requires NAI.
    </t>

This is what I have :)
-a

Vijay Devarapalli wrote:

> Alpesh wrote:
>
>> Charlie -
>>
>> I just did a grep on doc and we don't have a MUST that NAI and 
>> MHAE/MN-AAA AE
>> must go together. NAI "should" be used with the auth. option (not must).
>
>
> "should" is not defined in RFC 2119. :) when used in an RFC,
> the lowercase should is generally considered the equivalent
> of MUST. alteast thats my understanding.
>
> I guess you wanted to say NAI option SHOULD be used with auth
> option (?).
>
> Vijay
>
>>
>> Beyond that, can you list the issues? I can add them up on the issue 
>> tracker
>> (or maybe you can too) and we can track it there?
>>
>> -a
>>
>> Charlie P wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hello Basvaraj,
>>>
>>> I am in favor of getting things done as quickly as possible,
>>> but I hope that we do not have to rush to completion so
>>> soon on this.  What are the driving factors for expediting
>>> the standardization of the protocol?
>>>
>>> For instance, I strongly disagree that authentication
>>> should mandate including the NAI.  I also wonder
>>> why there is any mandate to agree with anything
>>> in rfc3012bis, since that is a protocol specification
>>> concerned with IPv4.
>>>
>>> I think there could be a number of other issues
>>> about which discussion is needed.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Charlie P.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> Next steps for I-D: draft-ietf-mip6-auth-protocol
>>>>
>>>> 1. Merge the NAI Option for MIP6 (specified in I-D:
>>>>   draft-ietf-mip6-nai-option) with the Auth protocol draft.   2. 
>>>> There were several people who suggested during the consensus call
>>>>   that they would like to see some changes to the current
>>>>   proposal. Please send the changes that you would like to see to the
>>>>   I-D by raising an issue. The issue list for MIP6 is at:
>>>>   http://www.mip4.org/issues/tracker/mip6/
>>>>
>>>> 3. We will issue a Working group last call as soon as the next
>>>>   revision of the I-D is published.
>>>>
>>>> -Basavaraj
>>>>   _______________________________________________
>>>> Mip6 mailing list
>>>> Mip6@ietf.org
>>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Mip6 mailing list
>> Mip6@ietf.org
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6
>
>
>



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