RE: [Mipshop] Extension of the WG Last Callondraft-ietf-mipshop-4140bis-00.txt

I don't think there is any reason to mandate a particular authentication
method on the MAP, given that HMIP doesn't rely on a particular method.
The point is that identity authentication is optional for HMIP and it
depends on deployment needs.  It is not unlike how EAPoIKEv2 support is
mandated for untrusted accesses in cellular networks, while still
referring to RFC4306 (which itself doesn't mandate EAP, as we've been
talking about).  

Vidya

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hesham Soliman [mailto:Hesham@elevatemobile.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 1:03 AM
> To: 'Vijay Devarapalli'
> Cc: mipshop@ietf.org; draft-ietf-mipshop-4140bis@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Mipshop] Extension of the WG Last 
> Callondraft-ietf-mipshop-4140bis-00.txt
> 
> 
>  > Hesham Soliman wrote:
>  > > The same question can be asked about the HA today, what  
> > MUST it implement?
>  > > Neither 3775 nor 3776 talk about EAP (IKEv2 wasn't 
> around  > but that's beside  > > the point). Of course the 
> drafts that specifically use AAA  > for bootstrapping  > > 
> would mandate EAP. So I don't understand why the MAP case  > 
> is a special case  > > that requires mandating one way or another.
>  >
>  > The difference between a HA and a MAP is that the HA and 
> the  > MN belong  > to a certain home network, and many 
> authentication models become  > possible, like pre-shared 
> keys, certs, *and* EAP.
> 
> => All these models are applicable to both the MAP and the 
> HA. The question being raised is why we need to mandate one 
> way if the choice depends on the deployment. Just like the HA 
> didn't mandate one way (preconfig or Certs...etc). 
> 
> Hesham
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mipshop mailing list
> Mipshop@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop
> 

_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
Mipshop@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop