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

gabriel montenegro <gab@sun.com> Thu, 24 March 2005 18:56 UTC

Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA15509 for <mipshop-web-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:56:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DEXbS-0005iN-7n for mipshop-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 24 Mar 2005 14:02:46 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DEXUk-00029Y-QB; Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:55:50 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DEXUj-00029T-My for mipshop@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:55:49 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA15430 for <mipshop@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:55:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dyn50.sunlabs.com ([204.153.12.50] helo=mail-mta.sunlabs.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DEXaS-0005gt-2H for mipshop@ietf.org; Thu, 24 Mar 2005 14:01:45 -0500
Received: from mail.sunlabs.com ([152.70.2.186]) by mail-mta.sfvic.sunlabs.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.1 HotFix 0.02 (built Aug 25 2004)) with ESMTP id <0IDV0027MDWR5000@mail-mta.sfvic.sunlabs.com> for mipshop@ietf.org; Thu, 24 Mar 2005 10:55:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [152.70.69.138] by mail.sunlabs.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.1 HotFix 0.02 (built Aug 25 2004)) with ESMTPSA id <0IDV00503DWR1EC0@mail.sunlabs.com> for mipshop@ietf.org; Thu, 24 Mar 2005 10:55:39 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 10:55:35 -0800
From: gabriel montenegro <gab@sun.com>
Subject: Re: [Mipshop] MIPSHOP discussion on new items and milestones
In-reply-to: <04cb01c52fef$2b276b20$0f6115ac@dcml.docomolabsusa.com>
To: James Kempf <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com>
Message-id: <42430D27.8070105@sun.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
References: <4238786E.9040202@sun.com> <4241C03F.5050002@sun.com> <04cb01c52fef$2b276b20$0f6115ac@dcml.docomolabsusa.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Macintosh/20041206)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 21c69d3cfc2dd19218717dbe1d974352
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: mipshop@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: mipshop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: mipshop.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop>, <mailto:mipshop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:mipshop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mipshop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop>, <mailto:mipshop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: mipshop-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: mipshop-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 50a516d93fd399dc60588708fd9a3002
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

James Kempf wrote:
> 1) I'd like to see some data first on proposed RO enhancements before
> starting any PS work on anything other than simple enhancements to the
> current RR protocol. I believe 3GPP2 has stated that they are happy with RR
> as stands, so I see no tearing hurry to standardize alternatives at this


i'm not sure i see any "tearing hurry" to standardize *anything* in this
working group.


> time. Since getting such data and comparing has been elusive in IETF, I
> think this is still an IRTF item. I think the authors of the two contenders
> could be encouraged to look at a combined design, and provide some data on
> it once they have agreement.


jari responded on this, yes there is some data.

> 
> 2)  Of the security alternatives mentioned in the discussion for HMIP,
> aggregate security is unacceptable because it does not provide the access
> network with protection against a mobile node that obtains the certificate
> of a roaming partner and presents itself as a client of  the roaming partner
> when it is not. IKEv2 with EAP authentication using the network access
> credentials would work, but only for a particular limited set of deployment
> circumstances. CGA would work but only if address configuration uses CGA
> (and there's the usual IPR considerations). So I think there's still need

these considerations apply to the SeND derived key for MN-AR as well. i know
you claim that the SeND license covers that, but i will only believe it when
we have the legal indication as none of us are lawyers.

yes, the operational implications of using CGA's are not clearly understood and
might affect deployment independently of any licensing issues.

> for more work on this in MOBOPTS, until we get a draft or drafts like we've
> got for FMIP.

i'm seeing this as a potential item, depending on whether a draft can be produced
in short order by the interested parties and deemed acceptable by the WG.


-gabriel

_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
Mipshop@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop