Re: [Mipshop] MIPSHOP discussion on new items and milestones

[Vijay Devarapalli <[e-mail]>]

hi all,

gabriel montenegro wrote:
> 
> Further work on FMIPv6
> ----------------------
> 
> - work on MN-AR security. For example:
> 
>    - AAA-based keys for handovers - the need/desirability for such
> 	an item was brought out in Jari's presentation in MOBOPTS.
> 	even though this item does not yet exist in the form of
> 	an I-D, it seems we should not have major difficulties
> 	identifying interested parties to work on it.
> 	This item is limited in terms of the deployment scenarios
> 	it supports, but the carrier/service provider scenario it
> 	caters to seems important enough to warrant work on it.
> 	perhaps for PS?
> 
>    - derive key from SeND for fmip (Rajeev/Kempf draft)
> 	despite the IPR implications because of the use
> 	of CGA (from SeND), this could target PS
> 
> - work on FMIPv6 itself:
> 
>    - The above items will go a long way towards solving the security
> 	issues in FMIPv6. The current lack of such solutions is
> 	perhaps the major issue why FMIP is currently experimental
> 	and not PS. Given the above items, the WG could also take
> 	on the effort to revise the base FMIP to PS. This effort
> 	will clearly benefit from the fact that there are several
> 	implementations of FMIPv6 (including publicly available
> 	ones), so feedback from these effort will surely help in
> 	cleaning it up towards PS.
> 
>    - Apparently, the CDMA folks (in particular, those working
> 	on "1x-EV evolution" have some interest in using FMIPv6.
> 	Another potential WG item could be a document to describe
> 	how FMIPv6 would work over such a link. This document
> 	would be analogous to our current FMIPv6 over 802.11
> 	document, and would similarly target informational.

the FMIPv6 tasks look good. I like the last task very much. :)

> 
> RR optimizations
> ----------------
> I must confess to me these seem less coherent and ready as a group than
> the above group. E.g., it's not clear to me whether a standards-track
> document would end up mixing different proposals, and how.
> 
> - CGA type idea from OMIP
> - CBA (credit-based) maybe no 'spot checks', just the basic stuff
> 	as is being applied to HIP, for example. this could complement
> 	other proposals like CGA or preconfigured MN-HA SA, for example.
> - EBU - but have heard concern that this *increases* signaling cuz it adds
> 	messages, what we want is less (not more) signaling.

IMO, these work items should not be taken up by MIPSHOP.
my understanding is that these proposals become mature in
MOBOPTS and MOBOPTS will recommend to MIP6 WG when they are
ready to be standardized as a proposed standard.

I am *not* looking forward to multiple RR Optimization
proposed standards in MIPSHOP.

Vijay

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