Subject: [MOBILE-IP] WG Opinion on MIER course?

From: Basavaraj Patil <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 16:17:14 -0600

Hello,

After having had a discussion with our AD (Dave Oran) we have
the following options for moving ahead with the MIER draft
(draft-ietf-mobileip-mier-00.txt):

1. Do a WG last call for this draft requesting a Proposed standard
   status and have RFC2002-bis reference it for the definition of
   extensions.
2. Roll MIER into RFC2002-bis, which will be going to a WG last call
   soon.

In view of the two drafts that are currently on the IESG plate, the
MN-NAI draft and the Vendor specific extensions draft, the extensions
defined in these drafts would have to be modified to the new mobile IP
extension format.

I would like to hear your views on the above two options.

-Basavaraj

---

From: "C. Perkins/D. Reese" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2000 11:10:17 -0800

I think there are other alternatives.

I agree that MIER would fit well in RFC2002-bis.  Failing that,
I would like to strongly suggest that MIER become an informational
draft, not a Proposed Standard.  My reasoning for this is simple.
MIER does not specify any protocol.

Second, the draft that I read had some _guidelines_ in the
Appendix.  I do not think that those guidelines should be
considered binding on the design for whatever generalized
extensions would be eventually be specified.

For instance, the Challenge draft has a fully specified
Generalized Authentication Extension, along with the
definition for a particular subtype of that generalized
extension.  I expect that a revised Route Optimization
draft will specify another subtype for that extension, and
that the Regional Registration draft will specify yet another
subtype.  These definitions do conform to the guideline in
MIER, the last time I looked.

However, I do not expect that an NAI generalized extension,
should one ever be defined, would need to conform to the
guideline in the MIER appendix.

I'll hold off on sending out the revised RFC2002-bis until I
hear whether working group members wish to include MIER
in that draft.

I'd also like to suggest that the NAI draft be allowed to go
forward before the MIER questions are resolved.  Some
people have been waiting a long time for that draft.

Regards,
Charlie P.