RE: [Mip6] WG LC: I-D draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrap-ps-01.txt (ProblemStatement for bootstrapping Mobile IPv6 )

Junghoon:

Please see inline: 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mip6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mip6-bounces@ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Junghoon Jee
> Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 1:44 AM
> To: mip6@ietf.org; Gopal Dommety
> Subject: Re: [Mip6] WG LC: I-D 
> draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrap-ps-01.txt (ProblemStatement for 
> bootstrapping Mobile IPv6 )
> 
> Hello, Gopal
> 
> I would like to re-comment about this WG I-D.
> I think this I-D needs to be refined to clearly state about 
> the relationship between the network access service and 
> mobility service, & local home agent assignment issue.
> I raised 3 questions related with this as follows.
> 
> Q1. Should the network access service be always performed 
> when a MN bootstraps ? 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Section 6.  Network Access and Mobility services [Page 14] 
> Only having Mobile IPv6 service is not possible, since the 
> Mobile IPv6 protocol requires ability to send and receive 
> IPv6 packets.  
> => It seems that network access service should be always performed.

If I understand your question correctly, the network access service should
always be performed. Network access is required to send/receive packets.
Now, whether access authentication/authorization is performed or not is
another issue. Were you refering to this later case? 

> 
> Section 7.1  Mobility Service Subscription Scenario => There 
> is no words about network access service.

The last paragraph mentions this. What specific details were you looking
for?

> 
> Q2. Does we have to consider the case of  infrastructure-less 
> scenario when we develop a bootstrapping solution or not ?
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Section 7.4 Infrastructure-less scenario [Page 17] This 
> specific scenario is not supported in this document.  The 
> reason for this is described in Section 9.
> Section 9. Security Considerations
> Thus, the case of infrastructure-less network where there is 
> absolutely no pre-mediated trust is kept outside of scope of 
> this document.
> => It seems that we don't need to consider the 
> infrastructure-less scenario 
>      when we create a bootstrapping solution.

This is explicitly left outside the scope.
> 
> Q3. Does a bootstrapping solution should support local home 
> agent assignment or not ?
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Section 5.1.2  Dynamic Home Agent Assignment [Page 10] Local 
> home agents
>       The mobile node's home ASP may want to allow a local roaming
>       partner ASP to assign a local home agent for the mobile node.
>       This is useful both from the point of view of communications
>       efficiency, and has also been mentioned as one approach 
> to support
>       location privacy.
> => What is the exact meaning of the 'useful' and 'also been 
> mentioned' ?
>      Is the local home agent function optional[MAY] ?

So, this is an ancillary need. It is definitely not must from this draft.

-a

> 
> draft-le-aaa-mipv6-requirements-03.txt
> Section 5.5.  Home agent allocation
>    Such functionality SHOULD also be considered when designing the AAA
>    support for MIPv6 solution.
> => It seems that we SHOULD support the local HA assignment function.
> I already know that draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrap-ps is not a I-D 
> that describe the requirement & 
> draft-le-aaa-mipv6-requirements was expired. 
> But i think that we have to decide about this because many 
> different approaches can be come out depending on our decision.
> 
> --Junghoon
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gopal Dommety" <gdommety@cisco.com>
> To: <mip6@ietf.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 5:11 AM
> Subject: [Mip6] WG LC: I-D 
> draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrap-ps-01.txt (Problem Statement for 
> bootstrapping Mobile IPv6 )
> 
> 
> > 
> > Hello All,
> > 
> > 
> > This is a Working Group Last Call for the following I-D:
> > draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrap-ps-01.txt
> > Title:
> > Problem Statement for bootstrapping Mobile IPv6
> > 
> > Please note that the status intended for this I-D is 
> Proposed Standard.
> > 
> > Please review and post your comments by March 3rd, 2005.
> > 
> > -Chairs,
> > 
> > URL-ID is:
> > 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrap-
> ps-01.txt
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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