[Mip6] Consensus Call: Standardizing the auth

Parviz Yegani <pyegani@cisco.com> Wed, 13 October 2004 07:48 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 DAA28841 for <mip6-web-archive@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Oct 2004 03:48:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CHe2i-0006ed-E6 for mip6-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 13 Oct 2004 03:59:28 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CHdqN-00082H-85; Wed, 13 Oct 2004 03:46:43 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CHdo6-0007O9-7t for mip6@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 13 Oct 2004 03:44:23 -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 DAA28528 for <mip6@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Oct 2004 03:44:19 -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 1CHdyx-0006Zb-8w for mip6@ietf.org; Wed, 13 Oct 2004 03:55:35 -0400
Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com (171.68.223.138) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Oct 2004 00:52:37 -0700
X-BrightmailFiltered: true
Received: from pyegani-w2k03.cisco.com (sjc-vpn5-993.cisco.com [10.21.91.225]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i9D7hSmR008579; Wed, 13 Oct 2004 00:43:29 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20041013003523.0440ba98@franklin.cisco.com>
X-Sender: pyegani@franklin.cisco.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 00:43:28 -0700
To: mip6@ietf.org
From: Parviz Yegani <pyegani@cisco.com>
Subject: [Mip6] Consensus Call: Standardizing the auth
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 02ec665d00de228c50c93ed6b5e4fc1a
Cc: pyegani@cisco.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: b4a0a5f5992e2a4954405484e7717d8c

Hi,

Sorry for replying a bit late...

I vote YES. That is IETF should standardize the authentication protocol 
specified in I-D
draft-ietf-mip6-auth-protocol-00.txt as an alternative means (to the IPSec 
mechanism specified
in respective RFCs) to securing the BUs and BAs between the MN and the HA.

  Rgds,
Parviz

 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: mip6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mip6-bounces@ietf.org] On
 > Behalf Of Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com
 > Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 12:03 AM
 > To: mip6@ietf.org
 > Subject: [Mip6] Consensus Call: Standardizing the auth
 > protocol [I-D:draft-ietf-mip6-auth-protocol-00.txt]
 >
 >
 >
 > 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