Subject: RE: [Mip6] rfc4285bis

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 10:16:50 +0100

Sorry for asking this again but what was the intended
status for RFC4285bis? Informational? 

Jouni

_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6

---

From: Basavaraj Patil <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 06:57:19 -0600

Hi Jouni,

Intended status for 4285bis: Standards track

I am also recommending that the IESG note in the previous RFC(4285) be
deleted when the bis I-D progresses.

-Raj

---

From: "Giaretta, Gerardo" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 11:23:56 -0800

Hi Raj,

I don't understand the rationale behind moving 4285 to standards track.
By the way, this is not mentioned in the charter; it is not written in
the last version of the I-D either.

The security properties of the protocol did not change: therefore I
cannot see how the state of the document can change or the IESG note can
be removed. 

Can you please clarify?

Thanks
Gerardo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Basavaraj Patil [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 4:57 AM
> To: ext [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Mip6] rfc4285bis
> 
> 
> Hi Jouni,
>

---

From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:01:28 -0800

Raj,
Did you mean to say that or was that a typo? I've not seen any
discussion on moving RFC4285 to standards track. 

FWIW, I think this document is not at all ready for standards track
publication (even as informational, it is largely underspecified).   If
the IESG note needs to be removed, there needs to be a plan for an
actual security review of the document - is there one?  If so, what is
it? 

To mention a few big issues with the document, it lacks crypto agility,
has replay protection issues, and most importantly does not comply with
RFC4107 - so, a serious revision (mostly, a re-design) is needed before
we start thinking about standards track publication. 

Vidya

> I am also recommending that the IESG note in the previous 
> RFC(4285) be deleted when the bis I-D progresses.
> 
> -Raj
> 
> 
> > Sorry for asking this again but what was the intended status for 
> > RFC4285bis? Informational?
> > 
> > Jouni
> >

---

From: Basavaraj Patil <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:38:54 -0600

Hi Vidya,

No, it was not a typo.

I do recognize that RFC4285 itself has been published as an Informational
RFC. And yes, there has been no discussion about putting 4285bis on a
standards track path. Maybe it is worthwhile to have this dialog on the ML
as well as at IETF70 about what the WG wants to do with the 4285bis I-D.

Removing the security note will of course require a security review but I
see this as being part of the normal process.

Anyway, I think Gerardo and you have raised a good point about there not
being WG consensus on making this a standards track I-D. So hence ignore my
previous comment about the proposed status for this I-D. I do believe we
need to get WG input on what track to progress the bis I-D.

-Raj