[Mipshop] MIPSHOP discussion on new items and milestones

[gabriel montenegro <[e-mail]>]

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