[Mipshop] MIPSHOP Session II minutes
"Vijay Devarapalli" <Vijay.Devarapalli@AzaireNet.com> Thu, 07 December 2006 02:35 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gs973-0002AB-Hx; Wed, 06 Dec 2006 21:35:53 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gs972-00029r-0y for mipshop@ietf.org; Wed, 06 Dec 2006 21:35:52 -0500
Received: from mail2.azairenet.com ([66.92.223.6]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gs970-0003xh-EI for mipshop@ietf.org; Wed, 06 Dec 2006 21:35:52 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 18:35:47 -0800
Message-ID: <D4AE20519DDD544A98B3AE9235C8A4C243D647@moe.corp.azairenet.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: MIPSHOP Session II minutes
Thread-Index: AccZqGbowmMqkLOzQ5SCXsTWdNoz3Q==
From: Vijay Devarapalli <Vijay.Devarapalli@AzaireNet.com>
To: mipshop@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: a4e5f67c5e230eddf754446d1a2201a4
Subject: [Mipshop] MIPSHOP Session II minutes
X-BeenThere: mipshop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: mipshop.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop>, <mailto:mipshop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:mipshop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mipshop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop>, <mailto:mipshop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: mipshop-bounces@ietf.org
Hello, here are the draft minutes for Session II. please send me any corrections/revisions. Session II ---------- WEDNESDAY, November 8, 1300-1500 1. Agenda review, Blue sheets and volunteers for notes and Jabber 5 Mins 2. HMIP and FMIP Security Association Alper Yegin draft-yegin-hmip-sa-00 10 Mins After EAP, NAS and MN share MSK HMIP-key derived from MSK SA distribution - on MAP side NAS will deliver the key to the MAP using the SA - IPsec PSK - rfc4285 for non EAP-based architecture you need to identify an equivalent of the MSK same applies to FMIP Lakshinath: NAS is an edge identity .... (lost.... the minute taker was standing at the mike) Vijay: this is different from what we have in MIPv6. I don't see a real optimization because you just authenticate with the MAP once Alper: this is an optimization Hesham: this can be better for FMIP because you don't want to use IKEv2 with each AR. With HMIPv6 you can use EAPoIKEv2 and you handle change of MAP with overlapping MAPs. I don't see a problem in re-using keys. To re-use MIPv6 work you should do a pull model instead of push model Alper: you can use this approach also in pull model Hesham: you are assuming that the NAS understands and is aware of the MAP. If the are multiple MAPs, the NAS must be aware of the MAP the MN is going to choose Ahmad: how the SPI is used? how is it communicated? Alper: SPI=1 at initial EAP auth. 3. Mobility Independent Services: Problem Statement Telemaco Melia draft-melia-mipshop-mobility-services-ps-01.txt 15 Mins ps -00 version submitted at the beginning of Sep how to transport signaling messages for MIH appendix for different mobility services support comments to ID-00 - make it shorter - make it 802.21 related but this may be in contrast with what already agreed in IETF #66 version 01 - removed appendix - more .21 specific three possible options - main body only (version 01) - main body plus all appendixes - main body plus one .21 specific appendix Juan Carlos: some technical objections because the text has some non .21 related aspects that are not useful. Supporting James proposal Telemaco: according to the charter we should stick to .21 Subir: we should stick to what .21 requests. One way is to describe the general problem and then describe what is .21 but this may imply we don't have a clear understanding on what we need to specify Behcet: 01 seems to be good Daniel: not sure which is the proble. In the draft you jump to deployment scenarios and solutions Telemaco: you need to transport mobility information from the mobile to the network and vice versa Daniel: it's not clear the gap analysis and why current solutions cannot be used Juan Carlos: the draft needs some improvements for people that do not know .21 Stefano: please send detailed comments on the mailing list on how to improve the document Stefano: we would like to adopt the PS draft as WG item. Is there any objection? (no objection) We'll ask the same question on the mailing list 4. MIH design considerations Robert Hancock draft-hepworth-mipshop-mih-design-considerations-01 15 Mins DC draft to capture IETF expertise DC draft should help the design process draft stucture activity since 00 version - discussion about particular solutions characteristics - reflect the underlying issues in the DC draft - GIST presented for information at 802.21 Problem Boundary Issues Routing and Discovery some major architectural options - full MN control - discovery details delegated to the nw - discovery of adjacent peer or full path Jari: in the DHCP WG we discussed that DHCP has been approved in .21 Robert: not approval status yet in IETF, nor in .21 draft (where just L2 discovery is covered) Vijay: a lot of discovery methos. are all these applicable? Robert: some are inappropriate (e.g. DNS SRV). DHCP and mDNS may have a role Subir: in .21 draft, the discovery can be done also in DHCP. ?: there is another alternative to discover the IP address of .21 peer and it's the .21 L2 Stefano: we can capture that L2 can be used but this is out of the scope Jari: not sure it is out of the scope. We should focus on the problem definition in order to understand what is out of scope Juan Carlos: about routing? is it IP routing? Robert: it's signaling routing from one peer to another, not IP routing Alper: is this doc informative or normative? Requirements? Stefano: informative 5. Mobile and Wireless Neighborhood Discovery using DHCP Alper Yegin draft-jang-mipshop-nhdisc-00.txt 5 Mins DHCP for 802.21 IS (Alper) IS trasnport = DHCP IS client/server = DHCP client/server define new DHCP options where is the DHCP server? - by default in the serving network but it can be also in centralized location or in the home network or in the target nw you can rely also on the DHCP security this is configuration and DHCP is for that it's only for IS, not ES or CS ?: .21 provides three services. Do you think it would not be better to have a common protocol for all three of them? Alper: ES and CS might have a common protocol and there may be link layer protocols ?: this is a problem statement document issue. Do we need to handle IS only or also ES and CS? Yoshi: in .21 no requirement to use a single transport for all three services Subir: requirement from .21 is for a transport protocol of MIH and not for particular services. Are only configuration information or more than that? I think that there are information like cost that are not configuration Alper: it's configuration/information Subir: DHCP is for network parameters and not provider information Stefano: this is once again related to the PS and I hope Yoshi or official LS can clarify that 6. Transport of Media Independent Handover Messages Over IP Akbar Rahman draft-rahman-mipshop-mih-transport-01.txt 10 Mins Yoshi: what is the proxy? Juan Carlos: we are not passing the information at the IP layer all the way down. The Proxy just take out the information and deliver to the MN using L2 .21 but we want to leave this open for now DHCP to discover the Mobility Manager UDP as MIH transport between MN and MM IPsec for security ?: what defines the retransmission protocol? Juan Carlos: .21 will do the retransmissions Yoshi: it's not a proxy, it's a point of service because it's terminating a transaction and creating a new one John: people will put NATs wherever they want. With UDP you will run in NAT problems. Now SIP is required to use TCP and UDP is optional Stefano: you assume that the sessions are initiated by the MN but this may not be true for ES/CS. You are assuming the NATs maintain the state for a long time and this is not true Alex: if the MN must be reachable, then you need to solve the NAT problem ?: it's not a session, it's an individual transaction 7. HMIPv6 Security Next Steps Chairs 15 Mins Proposal: use of EAPoIKEv2 is sufficient to progress HMIPv6 as a proposed standard Vidya: I agree. Do we need a document for SPD entries like rfc3776? Vijay: we should be able to re-use what we have defined for MIP6. Assumption is to point to that but we can Jari: there is a need for some level of details. If this work cannot use the MIP6 document, the doc has some problems Alper: why we don't use rfc4285 in HMIPv6? Jari: is anything that we need to do? Alper: we should at least ack that it can be used Jari: 4285 is not PS and we are doing PS Vijay: This does not mean we drop all work on HMIPv6 security WG needs to decide if we still want to do another separate solution James: I think it's sufficient EAPoIKEv2 Vidya: agree we don't need another option. If we look at futuristic options, not sure mipshop is the right place to do it Vijay: We'll go with that assumption and we need to modify the charter. Any objections? 8. Next Steps Chairs 15 Mins WGLC on rfc4068bis Vidya: not sure it's ready for WGLC James: there are still couple of issues in FMIP adopt draft-soliman-mipshop-4140bis-01 as WG item draft on CGA/CBA to IESG adopt draft-melia-mipshop as WG item DT to work on the solution Jari: are you completing the PS draft before the DT? Stefano: we would like to have a new revision before setting up the DT _______________________________________________ Mipshop mailing list Mipshop@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop
- [Mipshop] MIPSHOP Session II minutes Vijay Devarapalli