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

[gabriel montenegro <[e-mail]>]

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