Subject: [mobile-ip] Agendas for MIP4, MIP6 and MIPSHOP

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 16:49:13 -0500

Have been updated at the IETF57 agendas URL:
http://ietf.org/meetings/wg_agenda_57.html

---

From: Hiroyuki OHNISHI <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 15:30:12 +0900

I have three questions about MIPv6 BOF agenda.
I am sorry I might have missed some important info in MIP ML or IETF
announcement.

1. Are MIPv6 v24 and Ha-ipsec v8 just waiting for comments from IESG? 
It seems no time is assinged in agenda to discuss these specs.

2. MIPv6 BOF's description says "2)splitting up the two base
specificaions into smaller ....pieces".  Do the two base
specifications(RFC) will be obsoleted by these smaller ones in the
future?  I am not sure how to maintain MIPv6 specification.  

3. In second topic "Alternate ha-mn mn-cn ideas", what will be discussed?

Best regards,
Hiroyuki

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 09:09:22 +0300

(Resending as my e-mail does not appear to make it to the
list. Sorry if you see this twice.)

> It seems no time is assinged in agenda to discuss these specs.

I-D tracker says there are no "Discuss" votes on the base, which
means that it will be approved, though this hasn't been announced
yet.

On the ha-ipsec we are discussing with Steven Bellovin on toughness
of the API requirement and some reference issues. We think we have
given a sufficient answer to him, but you never know. No answer back
yet from his side.

> future?  I am not sure how to maintain MIPv6 specification.  

I think the approach is that a "bis" or "draft standard" version
will be developed, and while doing that the spec hopefully is also
modularized better. Backwards compatibility is clearly a high
priority, but we may find e.g. that some features are not
implemented and thus get downgraded to MAYs or dropped, bugs
will be fixed, etc.

Most major IETF protocols are revised. We're planning for
that now.

> 3. In second topic "Alternate ha-mn mn-cn ideas", what will be discussed?

I was just having the same discussion with the chairs and wanted
to know what their plan was. One thing we are going to have to
do in the future is enabling smooth security establishment
even in the presence of changing prefixes and IIDs (e.g. RFC
3041). This is discussed under topic "Bootstrapping ideas".
Another thing that we need to do is take a look at how things
work with IKEv2. In issue #319, folks from SSH demonstrated
a Mobile IPv6 & IKE scheme which fit very nicely into IKEv2,
but did things differently from ha-ipsec. The idea was to
discuss this under "Alternate ha-mn mn-cn ideas", I think.

--Jari

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 09:26:48 +0200

> discuss this under "Alternate ha-mn mn-cn ideas", I think.

I'm also interested in security issues associated with dynamic HA
assignment.

            jak

---

From: gabriel montenegro <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 18:11:17 +0200

James Kempf wrote:
>>>3. In second topic "Alternate ha-mn mn-cn ideas", what will be
> 
> discussed?
> 

I just sent the revised agendas for MIP6 (and MIPSHOP), and
as you see we do have some time alloted for discussion along
the lines outlined by Jari. If you have any other ideas, please
send them in so they are represented in the slides.

tnx,

-gabriel