Re: Potential recharter items (was Re: [MEXT] MIP6/NEMO/MONAMI6 WG drafts

Hi Marcelo/Vijay,

I would prefer not to take this up as a WG document. The draft adds
functionality to a mechanism that is known to be problematic, while a better
alternative exists and is already specified. If someone needs this to be
documented then maybe it can be progressed as an AD sponsored RFC, but IMO
it is not worth the full attention of the WG.

Note that the above is not critisism on the quality of the specific draft,
but rather based on the simple fact that we have already defined an overal
mechanism with better security for bootstrapping and securing MIPv6, and it
would be good for the IETF to be providing the market with clear signals
once in a while ;-)

Regards
George

On 11/24/07, marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es> wrote:
>
> Hi Vijay,
>
> El 24/11/2007, a las 18:24, Vijay Devarapalli escribió:
>
>
>
>
> > draft-devarapalli-mip6-authprotocol-bootstrap - There is an
> > ongoing consensus(?) call to make this a WG document. Not sure
> > if it is actually a consensus call. Something about gauging
> > interest. :)
> >
>
> this should be included in the rechartering discussion, what other
> people feel about including this item in the recharter?
>
> > 4283bis - There is no draft on this yet, but a need to update
> > 4283 was identified on the NETLMM mailing list and then
> > discussed later on the mext mailing list. The update is to
> > mainly include other subtypes for MN identifier. For example,
> > the MAC address would be the new subtype. Currently the
> > document only defines NAI.
> >
>
> same thing here, this should be included in the rechartering
> discussion, what other people feel about including this item in the
> recharter?
>
> Regards, marcelo
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MEXT mailing list
> MEXT@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>

Re: Potential recharter items (was Re: [MEXT] MIP6/NEMO/MONAMI6 WG drafts - Next steps