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

[Gopal Dommety <[e-mail]>]

Hello Gab,

          The list you have looks good. Fast Handovers for CDMA networks is 
very interesting. Definetly interested in working on this.

Regards,
-Gopal


At 10:18 AM 3/16/2005 -0800, gabriel montenegro wrote:
>Folks,
>
>As you may be aware, the working group's current milestones are
>all done.
>
>I spoke with Margaret Wasserman (taking over from Thomas Narten
>as our advising AD) during IETF week, about possible next steps
>for MIPSHOP.
>
>It seems like there is sufficient interest and plenty of potential
>work items to keep the working group going. Possible items
>Margaret and I talked about include the following areas:
>
>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.
>
>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.
>
>----
>
>These are the two areas I see most probable for continued work.
>Nevertheless, there are other items people have mentioned. Feel
>free to propose additional items if you consider they are ready for
>standardization. This is diffucult to judge, but the following
>are things to keep in mind (of course, they are *not absolute
>requirements*):
>
>- are the proposals mature (e.g., plenty of discussion, several
>         revisions taking into account WG feedback, published
>         results, existing implementations, etc)
>- is there interest in the proposals (e.g., are folks interested
>         in deploying, perhaps because the proposal enables certain
>         scenarios, is there interest from *more than one party*, etc)
>- is IPR resolved (at least RAND as per IETF rules, hopefully
>         royalty free of course)
>
>Items not ready *now* may of course be ready later on. In the meantime,
>those items may continue being discussed in other working/research groups,
>as individual submissions, etc.
>
>I have spoken with some of you about the above (thanks for the feedback).
>Even if you have privately expressed your opinions, please send your
>comments on the above items to the list. Besides expressions of
>support, negative opinions are equally important. I have purposely
>listed perhaps more items than we'll be able to take on, so we
>will probably have to cut the list a bit shorter. Hence, any
>comments to help in that respect are also very useful.
>
>So please consider the rechartering discussion for MIPSHOP open
>(hopefully the directions mentioned above are close enough).
>
>Comments?
>
>-gabriel
>
>_______________________________________________
>Mipshop mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop

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