Re: [Mipshop] WG Consensus call on AAA based handover keys for FMIPv6

[Vijay Devarapalli <[e-mail]>]

Folks,

Please reply to the consensus call. Do not discuss
draft-vidya-mipshop-handover-keys-aaa on this thread.

Vijay

Narayanan, Vidya wrote:
> I share Hannes's thoughts. This consensus call, as any call that may be
> issued yet again on draft-vidya-mipshop-handover-keys-aaa, has serious
> procedural inconsistencies. 
> 
> In a consensus call issued on 3/22/06, the chairs asked for adoption of
> 6 drafts as WG items, including draft-vidya. There was pretty much equal
> support to adopt all the drafts and some recommendations on a mobility
> directorate review for 3 drafts: 
> 
> draft-vidya-mipshop-handover-keys-aaa
> draft-kempf-mobopts-handover-key
> draft-arkko-mipshop-cga-cba-03.txt
> 
> The chairs then decided (in an email to the list on 4/11/06) to delay
> adoption of all those 3 drafts until after the MobDir review (the other
> 3 drafts were immediately adopted). A MobDir review of draft-vidya was
> posted to the list on 5/29/06; one on draft-kempf was posted on 1/27/07
> and no MobDir review was posted on draft-arkko (sorry if I missed it).
> In addition, a security review on draft-vidya was also posted. All
> review comments posted have been addressed in
> draft-vidya-mipshop-handover-keys-aaa-04. 
> 
> Since then, all the 5 other drafts that were part of the original
> consensus call have progressed (to varying degrees), while draft-vidya
> has been held without explanation. We have discussed potential conflicts
> between draft-ietf-mipshop-handover-key and RFC3972 that need to be
> resolved before that is an acceptable solution to move FMIPv6 to a PS.
> We need to discuss the implications of RFC3972 on that document on the
> list and see what needs to be done, before stating something along the
> lines of "We have already adopted draft-ietf-mipshop-handover-key as a
> WG document for the mechanism based on SeND. This is sufficient for
> advancing FMIPv6 as a proposed standard.", as the email from the chairs
> presently states.  
> 
> All said and done, I find this process completely unacceptable and have
> told the chairs that draft-vidya-mipshop-handover-keys-aaa is NOT a
> candidate for consideration in a procedurally inconsistent environment
> such as this one. 
> 
> Regards,
> Vidya
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:[e-mail]] 
>> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 12:50 AM
>> To: Vijay Devarapalli
>> Cc: [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [Mipshop] WG Consensus call on AAA based 
>> handover keys for FMIPv6
>>
>> Hi Vijay
>>
>> I would like to understand all this procedure a bit better.
>>
>> When the charter was created it called out for two mechanisms.
>>
>> One was quickly turned into a working group document whereas 
>> the other is kept waiting (even though we know that the AAA 
>> infrastructure will very likely be deployed in many, many networks).
>>
>> Hence, I would like to get a better understanding why there 
>> is a need to repeatedly ask the group again and again where 
>> as other proposals progress quickly.
>> Are we then going to have another consensus call whether we 
>> want draft-vidya-mipshop-handover-keys-aaa (or the many other 
>> competing drafts)?
>> Maybe another one some time later to ensure that we really want it.
>> (I am not kidding here: That happened to me in one other 
>> working group...)
>>
>> Ciao
>> Hannes
>>
>> Vijay Devarapalli wrote:
>>> Hello folks,
>>>
>>> Progressing FMIPv6 to Proposed Standard requires a 
>> mechanism to setup 
>>> security associations between the mobile node and the access router 
>>> dynamically. Currently our charter says we will develop two 
>> mechanisms 
>>> for this, one based on using Secure Neighbor Discovery between the 
>>> mobile node and the access router and one based on the AAA 
>>> infrastructure.
>>>
>>> We have already adopted draft-ietf-mipshop-handover-key as a WG 
>>> document for the mechanism based on SeND. This is sufficient for 
>>> advancing FMIPv6 as a proposed standard.
>>>
>>> However, it is unknown whether SeND will always be 
>> available on access 
>>> networks where FMIPv6 is likely to be deployed. At the same 
>> time a AAA 
>>> infrastructure is likely to be used in deployments where 
>> FMIPv6 is used.
>>> So it would be good to develop a mechanism that leverages the AAA 
>>> infrastructure and sets up security associations between the mobile 
>>> node and the access router dynamically. Note that any mechanism we 
>>> develop is likely to require extensions to the AAA 
>>> infrastructure/protocols to support the handover keying mechanism.
>>>
>>> So we would like to check if the WG still wants to develop 
>> a AAA based 
>>> handover keying mechanism for FMIPv6. So please reply to 
>> this email on 
>>> whether you think such a mechanism needs to be developed by the 
>>> MIPSHOP WG. Please respond by April 30. This is a short one-week 
>>> consensus call since we need to re-charter pretty soon.
>>>
>>> Note that this *NOT* a consensus call on adopting any 
>> particular draft.
>>> That will follow once we decide to go ahead with this work item.
>>>
>>> Chairs
>>> MIPSHOP WG
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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