RE: RE: [Dime] Impact of RFC 4285 for Diameter MIP6 Bootstrapping Work

Hi Yoshi,

I agree, no point on insisting that solutions would support 4285, if 4285
requirements are not included. I can think of aspects of 4285 that can be
problematic, but won't mention them now, since I don't want to be accused of
opening the pandora's box while aaa-ha-goals is going through last call or
the dime docs are underway :) 

We should not make claims we cannot back up later as that might derail the
standardization process two years from now. As Persians say (after a lousy
marketing translation) "A small quarrel in the beginning better than a
bloody peace at the end"



R,

Madjid


-----Original Message-----
From: Yoshihiro Ohba [mailto:yohba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 1:33 PM
To: Madjid Nakhjiri
Cc: 'Gerardo Giaretta'; 'Vijay Devarapalli'; mip6@xxxxxxxx; dime@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Mip6] RE: [Dime] Impact of RFC 4285 for Diameter MIP6
Bootstrapping Work

Madjid,

On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 01:04:04PM -0700, Madjid Nakhjiri wrote:
> Ok, so I see I spend a long email without reading the rest of the thread. 
> Do we feel the AAA goal draft efficiently captures the 4285 requirements?
> If yes, sorry for clogging your mailboxes..

That is my feeling and is why I had the following comment on aaa-ha-goals
draft:

"
  YO: This document seems to assume the use of IPsec between MN and HA
  for securing Mobile IPv6 signaling.  But the AAA interface could
  also be used for RFC 4285.  So I think it might be good to mention
  in this section that the document may not preclude the use of
  alternative methods for securing Mobile IPv6 signaling between MN
  and HA while this document focuses on the use of IPsec between MN
  and HA.
"

Yoshihiro Ohba


> 
> R,
> 
> Madjid
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gerardo Giaretta [mailto:gerardo.giaretta@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 12:37 AM
> To: Vijay Devarapalli
> Cc: mip6@xxxxxxxx; dime@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Dime] Impact of RFC 4285 for Diameter MIP6 Bootstrapping
Work
> 
> > > in the DIME working group we are currently producing documents that
> > > relate to the backend solution of the
> > >
> > > * Integrated Scenario
> > >   draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-integrated-dhc-01
> > >
> > > * Split Scenario
> > >   draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-split-02
> > >
> > > Now, the question came up whether we have to consider RFC 4285
> > > ('Authentication Protocol for Mobile IPv6') for our work as well.
> >
> > currently it is not clear if we are going to do any
> > further work on RFC 4285 in the MIP6 WG. so my
> > suggestion is to assume only the use of IKEv2 (with
> > and without EAP).
> >
> 
> Agree with Vijay, this is also the assumption for the AAA goals draft.
> 
> --Gerardo
> 
> > but it would be good to keep the solution flexible
> > so that it can be extended later for 4285 if required.
> >
> > Vijay
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > DiME mailing list
> > DiME@xxxxxxxx
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> DiME@xxxxxxxx
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mip6 mailing list
> Mip6@xxxxxxxx
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6
>