RE: [Mipshop] WG Consensus call on AAA based handover keys for FMIPv6

["Narayanan, Vidya" <[e-mail]>]

I share Hannes's thoughts. This consensus call, as any call that may be
issued yet again on draft-vidya-mipshop-handover-keys-aaa, has serious
procedural inconsistencies. 

In a consensus call issued on 3/22/06, the chairs asked for adoption of
6 drafts as WG items, including draft-vidya. There was pretty much equal
support to adopt all the drafts and some recommendations on a mobility
directorate review for 3 drafts: 

draft-vidya-mipshop-handover-keys-aaa
draft-kempf-mobopts-handover-key
draft-arkko-mipshop-cga-cba-03.txt

The chairs then decided (in an email to the list on 4/11/06) to delay
adoption of all those 3 drafts until after the MobDir review (the other
3 drafts were immediately adopted). A MobDir review of draft-vidya was
posted to the list on 5/29/06; one on draft-kempf was posted on 1/27/07
and no MobDir review was posted on draft-arkko (sorry if I missed it).
In addition, a security review on draft-vidya was also posted. All
review comments posted have been addressed in
draft-vidya-mipshop-handover-keys-aaa-04. 

Since then, all the 5 other drafts that were part of the original
consensus call have progressed (to varying degrees), while draft-vidya
has been held without explanation. We have discussed potential conflicts
between draft-ietf-mipshop-handover-key and RFC3972 that need to be
resolved before that is an acceptable solution to move FMIPv6 to a PS.
We need to discuss the implications of RFC3972 on that document on the
list and see what needs to be done, before stating something along the
lines of "We have already adopted draft-ietf-mipshop-handover-key as a
WG document for the mechanism based on SeND. This is sufficient for
advancing FMIPv6 as a proposed standard.", as the email from the chairs
presently states.  

All said and done, I find this process completely unacceptable and have
told the chairs that draft-vidya-mipshop-handover-keys-aaa is NOT a
candidate for consideration in a procedurally inconsistent environment
such as this one. 

Regards,
Vidya

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 12:50 AM
> To: Vijay Devarapalli
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Mipshop] WG Consensus call on AAA based 
> handover keys for FMIPv6
> 
> Hi Vijay
> 
> I would like to understand all this procedure a bit better.
> 
> When the charter was created it called out for two mechanisms.
> 
> One was quickly turned into a working group document whereas 
> the other is kept waiting (even though we know that the AAA 
> infrastructure will very likely be deployed in many, many networks).
> 
> Hence, I would like to get a better understanding why there 
> is a need to repeatedly ask the group again and again where 
> as other proposals progress quickly.
> Are we then going to have another consensus call whether we 
> want draft-vidya-mipshop-handover-keys-aaa (or the many other 
> competing drafts)?
> Maybe another one some time later to ensure that we really want it.
> (I am not kidding here: That happened to me in one other 
> working group...)
> 
> Ciao
> Hannes
> 
> Vijay Devarapalli wrote:
> > Hello folks,
> >
> > Progressing FMIPv6 to Proposed Standard requires a 
> mechanism to setup 
> > security associations between the mobile node and the access router 
> > dynamically. Currently our charter says we will develop two 
> mechanisms 
> > for this, one based on using Secure Neighbor Discovery between the 
> > mobile node and the access router and one based on the AAA 
> > infrastructure.
> >
> > We have already adopted draft-ietf-mipshop-handover-key as a WG 
> > document for the mechanism based on SeND. This is sufficient for 
> > advancing FMIPv6 as a proposed standard.
> >
> > However, it is unknown whether SeND will always be 
> available on access 
> > networks where FMIPv6 is likely to be deployed. At the same 
> time a AAA 
> > infrastructure is likely to be used in deployments where 
> FMIPv6 is used.
> > So it would be good to develop a mechanism that leverages the AAA 
> > infrastructure and sets up security associations between the mobile 
> > node and the access router dynamically. Note that any mechanism we 
> > develop is likely to require extensions to the AAA 
> > infrastructure/protocols to support the handover keying mechanism.
> >
> > So we would like to check if the WG still wants to develop 
> a AAA based 
> > handover keying mechanism for FMIPv6. So please reply to 
> this email on 
> > whether you think such a mechanism needs to be developed by the 
> > MIPSHOP WG. Please respond by April 30. This is a short one-week 
> > consensus call since we need to re-charter pretty soon.
> >
> > Note that this *NOT* a consensus call on adopting any 
> particular draft.
> > That will follow once we decide to go ahead with this work item.
> >
> > Chairs
> > MIPSHOP WG
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Mipshop mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mipshop mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop
> 

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