Subject: [MEXT] [RFC3775 changes] References to Bootstrapping

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 10:02:08 -0700

Hi,

RFC 3775 currently assumes that the mobile node is at least
pre-configured with the home prefix it needs to be using. Now
that we have developed bootstrapping mechanisms that allow a
mobile to dynamically configure a home agent and the home
address we have to refer to them in 3775bis.

Here is the proposed text.

OLD:

   <NONE>

NEW: (to be added at the end of section 4.1)

   This document assumes that the mobile node is configured with the home
   prefix for the mobile node to be able to discover a home agent and
   configure a home address. This might be limiting in deployments where
   the home agent and the home address for the mobile node needs to be
   assigned dynamically. Additional mechanisms have been specified for
   the mobile node to dynamically configure a home agent, a home address
   and the home prefix. These mechanisms are described in [38] and [39].

    [38]  Giaretta, G., Kempf, J., and V. Devarapalli, "Mobile IPv6
          Bootstrapping in Split Scenario", RFC 5026, October 2007.

    [39]  Chowdhury, K. and A. Yegin, "MIP6-bootstrapping for the
          Integrated Scenario",
          draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-integrated-dhc-05 (work in
          progress), July 2007.

The intention is to still allow the mobile node to be
pre-configured with the home prefix or even with a home address.

There might be other places in RFC 3775 that might require more
changes. I can scan for those, once we agree to make the change.

Vijay
_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 18:10:43 +0100

Vijay Devarapalli wrote:
> pre-configured with the home prefix it needs to be using. Now that we
> have

Have we?

I have implemented a bootstrapping method relying on DHAAD and MPD, as 
specified by rfc3775.

> developed bootstrapping mechanisms that allow a mobile to dynamically
> configure a home agent and the home address we have to refer to them
> in 3775bis.
> 
> This document assumes that the mobile node is configured with the
> home prefix for the mobile node to be able to discover a home agent
> and configure a home address. This might be limiting in deployments
> where the home agent and the home address for the mobile node needs
> to be assigned dynamically. Additional mechanisms have been specified
> for the mobile node to dynamically configure a home agent, a home
> address and the home prefix. These mechanisms are described in [38]
> and [39].
> 
> Integrated Scenario", draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-integrated-dhc-05
> (work in progress), July 2007.

What's the status of this draft and how does its status influence the 
advancement of 3775bis?

What's the status of draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integrated-08.txt and how does 
its status influence the status of 3775bis and of 
draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-integrated-dhc-05?

> The intention is to still allow the mobile node to be pre-configured
> with the home prefix or even with a home address.

State this intention in 3775bis.

> changes. I can scan for those, once we agree to make the change.

I think trying to refer to rfc5026 and two other drafts is opening a can 
  of ideas that will actually lead us further away from the simple goal 
of just upgrading typos and very obvious changes of rfc3775.

Alex

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 10:19:21 -0700

> I have implemented a bootstrapping method relying on DHAAD and MPD, as 

Right. And others have implemented and planning to use the split
and integrated bootstrapping mechanisms.

> draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-integrated-dhc-05?

It is with the IESG currently. Should be approved soon as Proposed
Standard.

> State this intention in 3775bis.

It is already there in section 4.1. :)

> of just upgrading typos and very obvious changes of rfc3775.

You are missing the point. You can always implement just RFC
3775. And not worry about other mechanisms. For folks who read
3775bis, it should be clear that there are other mechanisms
which do not require pre-configuration of the home prefix on
the mobile node. Note that [38] and [39] are both Informational
references in the text I proposed above.

I think this is best way to refer to the bootstrapping work,
unless you want the change to be proposed in the DHAAD security
considerations section. :)

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 18:36:27 +0100

> and integrated bootstrapping mechanisms.

MAke it a three-way recommendation then.

>> What's the status of draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integrated-08.txt and how 
>> does its status influence the status of 3775bis and of 

You mean the DIME draft should become a PS soon - is this going to stop 
the MIP6-Integrated advancement?  If so then why should 3775bis refer to 
it at all.

> It is already there in section 4.1. :)

:-) Where?  4.1 has 9 paragraphs none mentions 'boostrap'.  Or what do 
you mean?

>> I think trying to refer to rfc5026 and two other drafts is opening a 
>> can  of ideas that will actually lead us further away from the simple 
>> goal of just upgrading typos and very obvious changes of rfc3775.
> 

Sorry I don't get it, [38] rfc5026 is PS and dime-integrated draft is 
also targeted as PS.  I'm not sure we talk the same things here.

Are we sure we talk same documents?

> considerations section. :)

I'd agree referring to bootstrapping work.  But some ways of referral 
aren't correct.

For example:
"DHAAD HA doesn't know the address of the boostrapping MN", a-ha, so 
this is an inconvenient of DHAAD, so does a rfc5026-HA know the address 
of a bootstrapping MN?  Not quite.

"DHAAD is insecure because rfc3775 doesn't offer an authentication 
method for DHAAD", a-ha, so this is an inconvenient of DHAAD, so is 
rfc5026 secure?  Not quite.

Alex

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 10:43:01 -0700

> the MIP6-Integrated advancement?  If so then why should 3775bis refer to 

?? draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-integrated-dhc-05 was produced
by the MIP6 WG. It is with the IESG currently. The draft in DIME
is separate. It defines the Diameter AVPs necessary for the
integrated scenario.

Vijay

> :-) Where?  4.1 has 9 paragraphs none mentions 'boostrap'.  Or what do 

See the first paragraph. If its not clear, please propose
some text. Nobody is taking away your right to configure
the mobile node with a home prefix. :)

> Are we sure we talk same documents?

I said, all the bootstrapping documents go into Informational
References section in 3775bis. That means you don't have to
implement them or even read them to understand MIPv6.

Vijay

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 18:55:19 +0100

Vijay Devarapalli wrote:
>>>>> [38]  Giaretta, G., Kempf, J., and V. Devarapalli, "Mobile
>>>>> IPv6 Bootstrapping in Split Scenario", RFC 5026, October
>>>>> 2007.
>>>>> 
>>>> What's the status of this draft and how does its status
>>>> influence the advancement of 3775bis?
>>>> 
>>>> What's the status of draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integrated-08.txt and
>>>> how does its status influence the status of 3775bis and of 
>>> It is with the IESG currently. Should be approved soon as
>>> Proposed Standard.
>> 
>> You mean the DIME draft should become a PS soon - is this going to
>>  stop the MIP6-Integrated advancement?  If so then why should
>> 3775bis refer to it at all.
> 
> ?? draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-integrated-dhc-05 was produced by
> the MIP6 WG. It is with the IESG currently.

Ok.

> The draft in DIME is separate. It defines the Diameter AVPs necessary
> for the integrated scenario.

Maybe one wants to refer to it too?  I think the list can become quite long.

>> :-) Where?  4.1 has 9 paragraphs none mentions 'boostrap'.  Or what
>> do you mean?
> 
> See the first paragraph. If its not clear, please propose some text.
> Nobody is taking away your right to configure the mobile node with a
> home prefix. :)

Err... not sure we want to touch every paragraph of 3775... The first 
paragraph of 4.1 makes sense to me, I wouldn't modify it to suggest 
pre-configuration with the home prefix.

A separate section on bootstrapping would make sense, with 
pre-configuration of home prefix and running dhaad+mpd.

>>>>> There might be other places in RFC 3775 that might require
>>>>> more changes. I can scan for those, once we agree to make the
>>>>> change.
>>>> 
>>>> I think trying to refer to rfc5026 and two other drafts is
>>>> opening a can  of ideas that will actually lead us further away
>>>> from the simple goal of just upgrading typos and very obvious
>>>> changes of rfc3775.
>>> 
>>> 3775bis, it should be clear that there are other mechanisms which
>>> do not require pre-configuration of the home prefix on the mobile
>>> node. Note that [38] and [39] are both Informational references
>>> in the text I proposed above.
>> 
>> Sorry I don't get it, [38] rfc5026 is PS and dime-integrated draft
>> is also targeted as PS.  I'm not sure we talk the same things here.
>> 
>> 
> References section in 3775bis. That means you don't have to implement
> them or even read them to understand MIPv6.

Ah ok, thanks for clarification.

Alex

---

From: "George Tsirtsis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:13:57 +0000

Hi Vijay,

I am ok with the text you propose below as long as the integrated
draft proceeds in time. We will have to check this again when
RFC3775bis goes through last call process.

Thanks
George

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 07:04:18 -0700

> RFC3775bis goes through last call process.

It shouldn't matter. Both bootstrapping documents are listed as
Informative references. The RFC editor goes ahead with a
publication unless there is a normative dependency which is still
pending publication.

Vijay

---

From: "George Tsirtsis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:33:35 +0000

ok good.
George