Subject: Re: [AAA-WG]: AAA for IPv6

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 23:07:00 -0700 (PDT)

For NASREQ, MIPv4, and ROAMOPS we had drafts specifying the
architecture/framework, as well as requirements for a solution. 
The access protocols (e.g. PPP, MIPv4) were also well specified. 
That meant that the AAA WG only had to interface AAA to an architecture
and access protocol that was understood. This makes the job *much* easier. 

On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Thomas Narten wrote:

> Bernard,
> 
> Can you clarify a bit on what sort of consensus draft you would want
> out of a subject area WG. Would that be (for example) a problem
> statement and a corresponding set of requirements, as opposed to a
> particular solution?
> 
> Thomas
>

---

From: Pat Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 07:37:46 -0700

Although I do agree with Bernard on some points, I believe that waiting for
MIPv6 to be RFCed may be too late. The issue is that many folks will need
an AAA infrastructure to deploy MIPv6, and waiting for the RFC will simply
push out MIPv6 deployments. The issues with MIPv6 are mostly in the security
area (specifically in binding updates), and we can simply not specify any AAA
interactions for binding updates until a later time).

Personally, I think we should begin the work once our current specs are out
of our hands.

my 2 cents,

PatC