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

["Alpesh" <[e-mail]>]

Junghoon:

As I noted in separate emails, I am adding James suggestions - in main text
as well as security considerations. There may be a bit more changes/cleanup.


-a

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Junghoon Jee [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 6:49 AM
> To: Alpesh; [e-mail]; 'Gopal Dommety'
> Subject: Re: [Mip6] WG LC: I-D 
> draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrap-ps-01.txt (ProblemStatement for 
> bootstrapping Mobile IPv6 )
> 
> Alpesh,
> 
> > > 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?
> 
> This confisuion came from the use of 'network access provider.
> As i said, i like James' recommendation of  using the concept 
> of the 'service authorizer'.
> With my understaning is correct,
> In the Mobility service subscription scenario, both the 
> network access service and the mobility service are required.
> Howerver, only the mobility service authorizer does exist 
> without network access service authorizer.
> If you accept the use of James' comments, i have no more 
> issue related with this.
> 
> > > 
> > > 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?
> > 
> This question is in line with the first question.
> What about changing this section with little modification by 
> changing MSP to mobility service authorizer ?
> 
> 7.1  Mobility Service Subscription Scenario
> 
>    Many commercial deployments are based on the assumption that mobile
>    nodes have a subscription with a mobility service 
> authorizer.  In particular, in
>    this scenario the MN has a subscription with an mobility 
> service authorizer, called the home
>    service authorizer, for Mobile IPv6 service.  As stated in 
> Section 6, the mobility service authorizer is
>    responsible of setting up a home agent on a subnet that acts as a
>    Mobile IPv6 home link.  As a consequence, the home 
> mobility service authorizer should
>    explicitly authorize and control the whole bootstrapping procedure.
> 
>    Since the MN is assumed to have a pre-established trust 
> relationship
>    with its home provider, it must be configured with an identity and
>    credentials, for instance an NAI and a shared secret by some
>    out-of-band means before bootstrapping, for example by manual
>    configuration.
> 
>    In order to guarantee ubiquitous service, the MN should be able to
>    bootstrap MIPv6 operations with its home mobility service 
> authorizer from any possible access
>    location, such as an open network or a network managed by an ASP,
>    that may be different from the mobility service authorizer 
> and may not have any
>    pre-established trust relationship with it.
> 
> 
> 
> > > 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.
> 
> In my understanding,
> Infrastructure-less network means that there is no service authorizer.
> If it's right, yes it is outside the scope of bootstrapping.
> 
> > > 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.
> 
> Yes, i understand your opinion.
> I think we need to clearly decide that,
> it can be included in requirement items or not.
> 
> --Junghoon
> 
> > -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" <[e-mail]>
> > > To: <[e-mail]>
> > > 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
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6
> > >
> 

_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6