First of all, I have to emphasise that the scope of the work that is planned
to be done in the Mobopts RG will be vary narrow; i.e MIP6 specific.
The broader scope of privacy is something that needs more assesment in terms
of interest as well as applicability. Wassim Haddad has a mailing list that
has been setup to discuss the broader privacy problem. It would make sense to
have a BoF at the next IETF to discuss the privacy problem and decide if a
new WG should be created to deal with it. There has been a bar-bof held at
IETF61. Hopefully, Wassim will be able to put forth a brief charter and proposal
for ML discussion which leads to the BoF in Paris.
-BPa
>
> Thierry,
>
> If there is interest for an independent WG to look
> at the whole
> picture, we should consider that as a separate issue. In this
> effort we are trying to understand the implications for MIPv6.
>
> -Gopal
>
>
> At 04:41 AM 3/9/2005 +0900, Thierry Ernst wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >Sorry to pop up in the discussion.
> >
> >While I agree that MIP6 is the right WG to discuss MIP6
> specific issues,
> >who is going to look at the whole picture ? I agree with the comment
> >from JMC that it might be valuable to work on it in an
> independent WG so
> >that the work could span other mobility protocols.
> >
> >Note that regarding NEMO, location privacy is cited in the
> design goals
> >under section 3.10 of
> >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nemo-requireme
nts-04.txt
>
>Thierry
>
>On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 09:41:47 -0800
>Gopal Dommety <gdommety@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > JMC,
> >
> > The Intent is to focus on privacy issues dealing with MIPv6.
> > I
> > agree there are other issues which can be addressed by other WGs.
> >
> > -Gopal
> >
> > At 05:52 PM 3/8/2005 +0100, Jean-Michel COMBES wrote:
> > >Hi,
> > >
> > >IMHO, I don't think that MIP6 is the right place to do the works on
> > >Privacy. I think, it would be better to set up a new WG regarding
> > >Privacy because privacy issues are not only linked to MIPv6 but to
> > >all MIPv6 based protocols (ie. HMIPv6, FMIPv6, NEMO) and so linked
> > >to WGs like mipshop WG and nemo WG. There is a link with
> > >multi-homing too and so with multi6 WG. So it would be more
> > >efficient to do the works only one time for all these WGs.
> > >
> > >Regards.
> > >
> > >JMC.
> > >
> > >Gopal Dommety wrote:
> > >
> > >>Hello Rajeev and Bill,
> > >>
> > >> Based on interest of the MIP6 WG, we would like the MOBOPTS WG
> > >to > work on the issue of IP Address
> > >>Privacy in the context of MIPv6. We are thinking that this could be
> > >done >in 2 steps.
> > >>
> > >>1. Define the scope of the problem. After this step MIP6 WG will
> > >review >the document and provide feedback.
> > >>2. Subsequently MOBOPTS could work on Solutions to the problem
> > >>
> > >>Regards,
> > >>-Gopal
> > >>
_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
Mip6@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6
|
