RE: [Mipshop] final (?) list of MIPSHOP items for new charter

["Soliman, Hesham" <[e-mail]>]

Sorry I sent the previous email to your old address. Here's a resend:

Hi Gab, 

Here is the email I was referring to.

Hesham

 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]On
 > Behalf Of gabriel montenegro
 > Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 2:15 PM
 > To: [e-mail]
 > Subject: Re: [Mipshop] MIPSHOP discussion on new items and milestones
 > 
 > 
 > Folks,
 > 
 > Thanks for the excellent exchange so far. At this point, 
 > based on what I've
 > seen, I'd like to share with you how I'm seeing things.
 > 
 > 
 > MN-AR security
 > 	seems like there is sufficient interest and this item is
 > 	narrow enough to warrant further work on the SeND key
 > 	reuse method as well as to develop a AAA-based solution.
 > 	Whereas we believe there may be some IPR-issues to clarify
 > 	with the SeND based approach (in spite of Jim's interpretation)
 > 	we don't have the same clarity with respect to the AAA approach.
 > 	Please come forward with your IPR disclosures on this. 
 > This is not
 > 	optional.
 > 	
 > 	looking at 2 PS documents.
 > 
 > FMIPv6 itself
 > 	I'd postpone this item given that we don't have a clear 
 > understandiung
 > 	of what the exact relationship with DNA, CARD, 802.21 
 > and the forthcoming
 > 	neighborhood discovery is (and heck, there's even a 
 > proposal for dhcp).
 > 	I'm inclined not to include it for now
 > 	until we know more, and look into it again until a few 
 > months have
 > 	gone by and we have a better grasp of the security and 
 > the discovery
 > 	portions. The former to continue here, the latter to 
 > continue elsewhere
 > 	(e.g., mobopts).
 > 
 > FMIP-over-cdma
 > 	This experimental document is a useful exercise to 
 > better understand
 > 	deployment considerations and the above issues. It's 
 > also good in that
 > 	it encourages another SDO to seriously think about 
 > this, even if it is
 > 	in a preliminary manner (I don't believe they have 
 > firms and urgent
 > 	deployment plans). I have heard of at least two groups 
 > of folks in
 > 	the working group interested in this. You know who you 
 > are, and you
 > 	should work together on one document. Highly desirable: 
 > go through the
 > 	regular channels (ietf liaisons) and produce a document 
 > from 3GPP2
 > 	on this subject.
 > 
 > 	looking at one informational document
 > 
 > MN-MAP security for HMIPv6
 > 	I'd like to think that such an item could be included, 
 > but we do need to see
 > 	a draft on this subject in very short order. 
 > Conceptually, it does not seem
 > 	a much more difficult problem than MN-AR security, so 
 > depending on how quickly
 > 	the relevant draft can be produced, this could be 
 > entertained. It seems to me
 > 	that without this piece in place, talking about other 
 > HMIP work in MIPSHOP
 > 	is premature (but it should continue elsewhere). Like 
 > FMIP, other work could
 > 	be taken on later on.
 > 
 > 	perhaps (if a first solid draft appears shortly) one PS document
 > 
 > RO issues
 > 	Not clear how much of EBU is new and how much is just 
 > further language on
 > 	rfc 3775. At any rate, it does seem like a CGA-based 
 > scheme could be
 > 	worked on (heck, the basic concept has been around for 
 > ages), using
 > 	omip as a starting point. Highly desirable: go through 
 > the ietf channels
 > 	and using the proper liaisons obtain a message from the 
 > SDOs reputedly
 > 	interested in this item. This document would have the 
 > precondition for
 > 	CBA (authenticated notification of CoA change to the 
 > CN). Ideally, we'd
 > 	have a very simple CBA scheme in place as well.  Both 
 > of these mechanism
 > 	would be optional (i.e., we're not in the business of 
 > replacing RR).
 > 
 > 	looking at one PS document.
 > 	
 > 
 > This gives us a lot already, perhaps too much:
 > 	(up to) 4 PS documents (perhaps 3)
 > 	1 informational document
 > 
 > I don't think we want to take on any more load for now. As 
 > we complete
 > items, we will look into it (as we are doing now).
 > 
 > This may not be everybody's favorite list, but hopefully it 
 > works reasonably well
 > (or at least *maximizes the distribution of unhappiness*, as 
 > Brian put it at the plenary).
 > 
 > comments? close enough, way off?
 > 
 > -gabriel
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 	
 > 
 > _______________________________________________
 > Mipshop mailing list
 > [e-mail]
 > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop
 > 

 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: gabriel montenegro [mailto:[e-mail]]
 > Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 1:24 PM
 > To: Soliman, Hesham; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
 > Subject: RE: [Mipshop] final (?) list of MIPSHOP items for 
 > new charter
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > --- "Soliman, Hesham" <[e-mail]> wrote:
 > 
 > > Hi Gab, 
 > > 
 > >  > I tried to have the smallest list of items for which I 
 > sensed some
 > >  > enthusiasm. We could ask for explicit commitment from 
 > folks, but 
 > >  > basically, for those items I felt the WG would have 
 > enough people
 > >  > to edit, review and comment. Frankly, I did not see 
 > much of a group
 > >  > of folks who'd do that on the HMIP side of things. If 
 > I've got the 
 > >  > wrong impression, please speak up (I know about you Hesham).
 > > 
 > > => I guess my surprise is because you put the original 
 > > proposal and there was no objection to having the HMIP item.
 > > People objected to lack of other items. People don't normally
 > > come out to support something that's already in the charter, they
 > > complain about what's missing. So, I'm confused as to what you
 > > expected to see (and didn't) after you sent out the charter.
 > > If you want to eliminate confusion maybe you should explicitly
 > > ask for people's support of different items on the charter. 
 > > It's not clear how you made that decision.
 > > 
 > > Hesham
 > 
 > I'm confused, so I went back in the archives.
 > Here's the original list:
 > 
 > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mipshop/current/msg00960.html
 > 
 > There was no mention of HMIPv6. There was a subsequent discussion in
 > which you brought it up, though. Is that what you were 
 > thinking about?
 > 
 > -gabriel
 > 
 > > 
 > >  > 
 > >  > -gabriel
 > >  > 
 > >  > --- "Soliman, Hesham" <[e-mail]> wrote:
 > >  > > Gab, 
 > >  > > 
 > >  > > I don't understand what happened to the HMIP doc you 
 > had initially.
 > >  > > Why did this disappear?
 > >  > > 
 > >  > > Hesham
 > >  > > 
 > >  > >  > -----Original Message-----
 > >  > >  > From: [e-mail] 
 > >  > [mailto:[e-mail]]On
 > >  > >  > Behalf Of gabriel montenegro
 > >  > >  > Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 4:49 AM
 > >  > >  > To: [e-mail]
 > >  > >  > Subject: [Mipshop] final (?) list of MIPSHOP items for 
 > >  > new charter
 > >  > >  > 
 > >  > >  > 
 > >  > >  > Folks,
 > >  > >  > 
 > >  > >  > Based on the discussion, interest shown, etc, here's a 
 > >  > >  > reduced list of next 
 > >  > >  > milestone items. Other items, of course, could be 
 > added once 
 > >  > >  > progress on 
 > >  > >  > this list has been made.
 > >  > >  > 
 > >  > >  > Further work on FMIPv6
 > >  > >  > ----------------------
 > >  > >  > 
 > >  > >  > - work on MN-AR security. 
 > >  > >  > 
 > >  > >  >    - AAA-based keys for handovers - 
 > >  > >  >  
 > >  > >  >    - derive key from SeND for fmip 
 > >  > >  > 
 > >  > >  > 	2 documents
 > >  > >  > 
 > >  > >  > - work on FMIPv6 itself:
 > >  > >  > 
 > >  > >  > 		1. common information elements for use by 
 > >  > >  > 802.11, fmip6, fmip4
 > >  > >  > 		2. local repair a la FBU/FBAck/FNA
 > >  > >  > 		3. IP transport of those information elements 
 > >  > >  > from the AR
 > >  > >  > 			(PrRtXXX + CARD MN-AR ==> ICMPv6?)
 > >  > >  > 
 > >  > >  > 	potentially two docs:
 > >  > >  > 
 > >  > >  > 	- info elements (#1 above)
 > >  > >  > 	- "FMIPv6" (#2 and #3)
 > >  > >  > 
 > >  > >  > 	2 documents
 > >  > >  > 
 > >  > >  > RR optimizations
 > >  > >  > ----------------
 > >  > >  > 
 > >  > >  > - merge of CGA-OMIP and CBA 
 > >  > >  > 
 > >  > >  > 	1 document
 > >  > >  > 
 > >  > >  > Total:  5 documents
 > >  > >  > 
 > >  > >  > I believe this captures what the WG wants and can 
 > reasonably 
 > >  > >  > do in the short term.
 > >  > >  > Unless the list above is terribly broken, this is what I'd 
 > >  > >  > like to present to the
 > >  > >  > AD's for approval.
 > >  > >  > 
 > >  > >  > -gabriel
 > >  > >  > 
 > >  > >  > _______________________________________________
 > >  > >  > Mipshop mailing list
 > >  > >  > [e-mail]
 > >  > >  > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop
 > >  > >  > 
 > >  > > 
 > >  > > ===========================================================
 > >  > > This email may contain confidential and privileged 
 > >  > material for the sole use
 > >  > >  of the intended recipient.  Any review or distribution by 
 > >  > others is strictly
 > >  > >  prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient please 
 > >  > contact the sender
 > >  > >  and delete all copies.
 > >  > > ===========================================================
 > >  > > 
 > >  > > 
 > >  > > _______________________________________________
 > >  > > Mipshop mailing list
 > >  > > [e-mail]
 > >  > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop
 > >  > > 
 > >  > 
 > > 
 > 
 > 

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