Re: [Mip6] WG LC: I-D draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrap-ps-01.txt (Problem Statement 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.

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

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.

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] ?

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