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

Forwarding this email from Mark (by request) since his original email
does not seem to have made it to the list.

-BPa

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Lipford, Mark A [NTK] 
> [mailto:Mark.A.Lipford@mail.sprint.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 1:01 PM
> To: Alpesh; Patil Basavaraj (Nokia-NET/Dallas)
> Cc: mip6@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Mip6] Consensus Call: Standardizing the auth protocol
> [I-D:draft-ietf-mip6-auth-protocol-00.txt]
> 
> 
> I agree, a YES for me too.
> 
> Mark A. Lipford 
> Manager, Sprint Industry Standards 
> 6220 Sprint Parkway (Eisenhower C) 
> Mailstop:  KSOPHD0504-5D128 
> Overland Park, KS  66251-6118 
> 
> (913) 794-3764 (office) 
> (913) 794-0420 (fax) 
> (913) 579-2319 (mobile) 
> Mark.A.Lipford@mail.sprint.com 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mip6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mip6-bounces@ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of
> Alpesh
> Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 11:45 AM
> To: Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com
> Cc: mip6@ietf.org
> Subject: 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
> 

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