Re: [Seamoby] Terminology Draft Needed

	Hi,

	I never meant to deny any security terminology from the draft. Of
course some key mobile/wireless specific terms/interpretations should be
there, I agree. It is doable, if "someone does it"...:) Perhaps Charlie
could edit a brief RFC 2002 security terminology for this terminology
draft?

	Jim

On Fri, 18 Jan 2002, James Kempf wrote:

> Jukka,
>
> The issue is the following. Due to a difference between the security
> terminology used in RFC 2002, which was also used in
> draft-mobileip-ietf-aaa-key-08.txt, and standard IETF security
> terminology, there was a misunderstanding about
> the nature of the solution in the AAA keys draft that led the IESG
> security reviewer to reject the draft. For example,
> nowhere in the AAA keys draft does it talk about a session key, but, if
> you read the draft, that is really what it is about. Since
> the security terminology in RFC 2002 is, in some sense, fairly standard
> in the mobile networking community,
> it has been suggested that the terminology draft include a short (it
> need not be lengthy) mapping between the
> terminology used in RFC 2002 and standard IETF security terminology to
> avoid this problem in the future.
>
> Do you think this is doable?
>
>             jak
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jukka Manner" <jmanner@cs.Helsinki.FI>
> To: "James Kempf" <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com>
> Cc: "Phil Neumiller" <pneumiller@meshnetworks.com>; <seamoby@ietf.org>
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 10:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [Seamoby] Terminology Draft Needed
>
>
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > as I am the editor of the terminology draft, I would like to
> > continue the work me and my colleagues started a year ago (yes, the
> > terminology draft is today 1 year and 6 days old). Since the document
> is
> > already 28 pages long, I would rather add only a bare minimal set of
> > security terminology, only the ones absolutely needed in
> > Seamoby/MIP/MANET---a full security terminology would belong to
> another
> > WG.
> >
> > Second, the pointer Charlie gave is false. It is the old version
> > from summer, although it somehow has the "03" in the name... hmm... A
> new
> > version has been on the IETF draft repository since November. This is
> the
> > right version to discuss:
> >
> >         Title           : Mobility Related Terminology
> >         Author(s)       : J. Manner et al.
> >         Filename        : draft-manner-seamoby-terms-03.txt
> >         Pages           : 28
> >         Date            : 28-Nov-01
> >
> > There is a need for common definitions of terminology in the work to
> > be done around IP mobility. This memo defines terms for mobility
> > related terminology. It is intended as a living document for use by
> > the Seamoby working group, and especially for use in Seamoby drafts
> > and in WG discussions. Other working groups dealing with mobility may
> > also take advantage of this terminology
> >
> > A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-manner-seamoby-terms-03.txt
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Jukka
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, James Kempf wrote:
> >
> > > Phil,
> > >
> > > Pat and I were planning on sending a message out about this. I had
> asked
> > > Charlie for a pointer to
> > > the draft, you have helpfully supplied it (see below). Thanx.
> > >
> > > So we have one strong endorsement of adopting the Charlie's
> terminology
> > > draft as a WG item.
> > > Anyone else have strong feelings one way or the other on the issue?
> > >
> > >             jak
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Phil Neumiller" <pneumiller@meshnetworks.com>
> > > To: <manet@itd.nrl.navy.mil>; <seamoby@ietf.org>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 6:39 AM
> > > Subject: [Seamoby] Terminology Draft Needed
> > >
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I have seen Charlie pull out the terminology draft at least a few
> > > times! :-)  Why can't
> > > > some WG chair in SeaMoby or MANET adopt it as WG draft?
> > > >
> > > > http://people.nokia.net/~charliep/txt/seamoby/term.txt
> > > >
> > > > It seems that many times arguments are over terminology.  IMO, I
> would
> > > like to
> > > > the SeaMoby WG become a bridge between MANET and MIP technologies,
> > > > especially with respect to AR discovery and CT.  This terminology
> > > draft would make
> > > > a very nice addition to the SeaMoby WG draft list.
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > >
> > > > Phil
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Seamoby mailing list
> > > > Seamoby@ietf.org
> > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Seamoby mailing list
> > > Seamoby@ietf.org
> > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby
> > >
> >
> >
>

_______________________________________________
Seamoby mailing list
Seamoby@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby