Subject: Re: [Mobike] Scope of SA change in design document..

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 15:43:58 +0200

Francis Dupont wrote:
>
>   The working group decided that it is not a concern to create
>   mutliple IKE SAs and did close issue 8. Thus there is no reason
>   to restart the discussion about this same issue again here.
>
> => there is a reason: an explicit request from the Monami6 WG.  As
> it is in the charter of Mobike IMHO the only thing the Monami6 WG
> can do is this request. Now Monami6 people can raise a concern at
> the last call for the design document and/or ask for a transfer of
> this point between WGs' charters. BTW the Monami6 WG is supposed
> to address real world concerns so I don't believe the Mobike WG
> should ignore the message...

I agree, we should not ignore the message. However, as we're
basically finished with the MOBIKE base protocol, I don't 
think we should talk about "reopening issue 8", since that 
would be slightly misleading.

What we can talk about is specifying an extension to the MOBIKE 
base protocol that would provide the functionality Monami6 would 
want. Determining what exactly the extension should do to satisfy 
Monami6 needs will take time (especially since Monami6 itself will 
take some time to stabilize -- after all, the WG was started 
less than two months ago), so it will be a separate document.

Thus, this is not an "issue" for the MOBIKE base protocol document 
or the design document (which explains why the base protocol was 
done that way): it's a new work item for MOBIKE WG.

Currently, the issue tracker at www.vpnc.org is only used to track 
issues for the base protocol document. New work items should be 
tracked by changing the milestones in the charter instead.

Best regards,
Pasi
_______________________________________________
Mobike mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.machshav.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mobike

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 15:11:59 +0100

In your previous mail you wrote:

=> if it was not clear enough, I spoke about "reopening issue 8"
for *extensions* to the base protocol.

=> I fully agree.

=> as far as I know "extensions" is one of the next work items.

=> it seems we agree. The issue 8 and the "initiator" decides everything
are the first two points to solve in extensions IMHO as they have bad
impacts in real world extra requirements.

Thanks

[email-masked]
_______________________________________________
Mobike mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.machshav.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mobike