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

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

Hi James,


 > I registered an objection. My objection was that there was 
 > no discussion in
 > MOBOPTS on security, as was done for FMIP. Until such a 
 > discussion occurs, I
 > cannot support moving HMIP to MIPSHOP for standards-track discussion.

=>ok. We discussed this at length in private emails 
with Gab and I thought this was resolved. I don't want to
repeat this unless you want to resend those private emails to the list
(I don't have a problem with it. So, if you and Gab are happy with sending them
publicly go ahead.).

So, since this is a WG effort I'll just rely on the WG
concensus process. If other reasons are raised or if other
people share James' concern let's discuss, but it seems
like I failed to make this clearer to James. 

For the record, and the benefit of the WG, I reiterate that
the security and Internet ADs had no problems with the 
security approach in the draft.

Hesham

 > 
 >             jak
 > 
 > ----- Original Message ----- 
 > From: "Soliman, Hesham" <[e-mail]>
 > To: <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
 > Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 8:24 AM
 > Subject: RE: [Mipshop] final (?) list of MIPSHOP items for 
 > new charter
 > 
 > 
 > 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
 > 
 > 
 >  >
 >  > -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
 > 
 > 
 > 

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