Re: [Mip6] Consensus Call: Standardizing the auth protocol [I-D: draft-ietf-mip6-auth-protocol-00.txt]

My vote is YES for the draft.

-a

Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com wrote:

>This is a consensus call to the WG on the issue of standardizing the
>authentication-data-suboption mechanism for performing a binding between the
>MN and HA. The issue has been discussed on the WG mailing list over
>the last few weeks. The I-D
>(draft-patil-mip6-whyauthdataoption-00.txt) has captured some of the
>arguments, but there are several others that have been made on the
>list as well. A summary of the discussion was sent out earlier and is
>captured in :
>http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mip6/current/msg01690.html
>
>The proposal here (in brief) is to standardize a mechanism specified
>in I-D draft-ietf-mip6-auth-protocol-00.txt for performing MIP6
>registration with a home agent. RFC3775 specifies the use of IPsec to
>secure the binding update/ACK messages between the MN and HA. The
>auth-protocol mechanism relies on the use of an
>authentication-data-suboption and does not require the MN-HA to
>establish an IPsec SA.  
>(For the discussion that has ensued so far, please refer to the MIP6
>ML archives)
>
>The question to the WG is:
>
>1. Should we standardize the authentication protocol specified in I-D
>   draft-ietf-mip6-auth-protocol-00.txt as an alternative (to the
>   IPSec mechanism specified in RFC3775/6) means to securing the BUs
>   and BAcks between the MN and HA. Note that this solution is an
>   additional mechanism for doing registration with an HA and does not
>   deprecate the currently specified solution. 
>
>   Yes	     [ ]
>   No	     [ ]
>
>
>The consensus call will close on October 12th, 2004.
>
>-Chairs
>
>_______________________________________________
>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