Subject: Re: [MOBILE-IP] Personal I-Ds to WG work documents

From: Roberts Phil-QA3445 <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 17:16:46 -0500

Pat,

        sorry it's taken me so long to reply.  Also sorry about my response.
My mailer is the flakiest piece of software I've ever used.

First, as to you being on something, I can't comment :-).  But I was
confused too.
Second, yes, AAA keys is a working group document and it depends on a
document that is not currently, the generalized key extension.  So the
generalized key extension draft does need to be a working group document and
since I haven't heard any objections, we will make it so.
Third, having heard what you have to say about the number of documents and
the virtues of several smaller documents instead of combining into larger
documents I agree with you.

Phil

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2000 11:14 AM
To: Roberts Phil-QA3445
Cc: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [MOBILE-IP] Personal I-Ds to WG work documents

>
> That's not *exactly* the way I recollect the discussion.  On the AAA Keys
> both Raj and I agreed that it should be a working group item but we were
> near the end of the second session and there was no time for any
discussion.
> So, we'd like to hear from the working group on making this an item.

Well, I don't know exactly what I was on yesterday, but this document
already
IS a WG document. I think that what we talked about was moving it to last
call. Sorry for the confusion. However, having said that, I just received
some
comments that I wish to address before doing the last call.

I do remember this discussion since I had mentioned that interoperability
had
already been done.

>
> On the first two, we'd like to hear from the working group.
>
> Personally I'd like to see the first two as working group items.  Since
NAI
> is an RFC, and since we've already taken MIER, having a generalized NAI
> seems clearly within the scope.  I'm a little bit concerned about a growth
> of documents from the working group.  Is it worthwhile thinking about how
to
> combine this with something else?  I guess I have the same comment on
> generalized keys.  Thoughts?

Well, I'm not sure what our options are here. We could:
1. Move them ahead separately (my preference) - They aren't the same thing
2. Combine them (and worry about authorship, since they aren't the same
co-authors) 3. Add them to yet another third document (and here the
authorship
problems gets worse)

I don't necessarily agree with your argument of the number of documents.
Take
a look at PPPEXT and IPSec WG, we aren't even close! Combining lots of
documents into one has the following disadvantages: 1. Longer through RFC
editor (rule: lowest byte count comes first) 2. Longer IESG review (longer
documents do take longer to review, and if they address many problems, that
makes it harder to review)

Take your pick. In either case, the AAA Keys cannot advance without the
Generalized Key draft (whether it is in that document, or combined in
another
document).

PatC
>
> Phil
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 5:24 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [MOBILE-IP] Personal I-Ds to WG work documents
>
>
> All,
>
> At the Adelaide IETF, the WG agreed to move the following documents to WG
> work
> documents:
>         - Generalized NAI I-D (draft-mkhalil-mobileip-gnaie-00.txt)
>         - Generalized Keys I-D (draft-perkins-mobileip-gen-key-01.txt)
>         - AAA Registration Keys I-D
(draft-calhoun-mobileip-aaa-key-00.txt)
>
> In fact, the last one already has had implementations, and
interoperability
> at
> the last Connectathon. Therefore, unless there are objections, I would
like
> to
> see it go through last call.
>
> PatC