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

[Wassim Haddad <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, Vijay Devarapalli wrote:

> hi all,
>
> gabriel montenegro wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> the FMIPv6 tasks look good. I like the last task very much. :)
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> IMO, these work items should not be taken up by MIPSHOP.
> my understanding is that these proposals become mature in
> MOBOPTS and MOBOPTS will recommend to MIP6 WG when they are
> ready to be standardized as a proposed standard.
>
> I am *not* looking forward to multiple RR Optimization
> proposed standards in MIPSHOP.

=> I am looking exactly to the *opposite* especially when you have a
proposal which makes sense!


Wassim H.


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