Subject: [MEXT] MEXT recharter

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 09:56:34 +0100

Hi,

We have finished the recharter discussion and after evaluating the
feedback received on the ml, on the IETf70 meeting and additional
discussions, we propose the following next steps for the recharter
process.

Include the following new items in the MEXT WG charter:

Binding Revocation for IP Mobility
Generic Notification Message for Mobile IPv6
Virtual Home Link configuration for Mobile IPv6
Extend DSMIPv6 Home Network Support

Further discussion is needed for:
IP Tunneling Optimization in a Mobile Environment: we are currently
discussing with MIPSHOP chairs since it seems to us a better fit
there.
GRE requirements for IPv6 mobility: we are discussing with NETLMM
chairs, since it seems a better fit there
MIPv6 home link operation in various SDOs: we are having a
presentation on IETF71 since we think more discussion needed in the
WG.

We will soon (after the IETF71) be sending the actual proposed
charter text, but mainly the only remaining issue to define are the
deadlines for each item.

Regards, marcelo

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

---

From: [email-masked] (Arnaud Ebalard)
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 14:07:34 +0100

Hi,

marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]> writes:

> ... we propose the following next steps for the recharter process.
>
> [...]
> [...]

What is the status of proposed items that are not in those 2 lists? For
instance, "Interaction between Mobile IPv6 and IPsec/IKE by PF_KEY
extensions"? 

Cheers,

a+

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 14:47:12 +0100

Hi,

the proposal is that we are not taking these items this time.

regards, marcelo

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 16:00:15 -0800

Hi Marcelo, Julien,

I am not sure why the PK_KEY extensions are not being added to
the charter. I still think we should work on the PK_KEY extensions
for Mobile IPv6. That has been on mip6 WG's backburner for nearly
four years. And I think it is useful to document the API extensions,
since there is so much interaction going on between the SADB and
the Mobile IPv6 protocol inside any implementation.

Vijay

---

From: "Hui Deng" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 12:21:48 +0800

PF_KEY does influence all IP mobility related IPsec part.
If this basic concept has not yet been resolved, can't see
why those protocol can move forward.

thanks,

-Hui

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 09:09:19 +0100

Hi Vijay,

i am kind of surprised by your question.

yourself actually considered that this was a low priority item, since  
this is what you expressed as preferences (included below)

so, let me ask you a question, why did you considered this was a low  
priority item to begin with?

> Inicio del mensaje reenviado:
>
>> De: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
>> Fecha: 7 de marzo de 2008 01:00:15 GMT+01:00
>> Para: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>, Julien Laganier <[email-masked] 
>> >
>> Cc: [email-masked]
>> Asunto: Re: MEXT recharter
>>>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Julien,
>>
>> Here is my list.
>>
>> [R] Generic Notification Message for Mobile IPv6
>> [R] 4283bis to extend MN identifier to other identifiers
>> [C] Binding Revocation for IP Mobility
>> [E] MIPv6 home link operation in various SDOs
>> [C] Virtual Home Link configuration for Mobile IPv6
>> [C] Interaction between Mobile IPv6 and IPsec/IKE by PF_KEY  
>> extensions
>> [R] GRE requirements for IPv6 mobility

regards, marcelo

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 08:10:59 -0800

> i am kind of surprised by your question.

It looked like a lot of people were interested in it when you
had asked the working group to rank each of the proposed items.

> priority item to begin with?

Thats because the other items I listed above the PK_KEY extensions
do have higher priority, IMO.

Vijay

>>> Para: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>, Julien Laganier 
>>> <[email-masked]>
>>> Cc: [email-masked]
>>> [C] Interaction between Mobile IPv6 and IPsec/IKE by PF_KEY extensions

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 17:30:04 +0100

> do have higher priority, IMO.

right, this is also our conclusion, hence the result.
so it seems we do agree here.

Regards, marcelo

---

From: Julien Laganier <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2008 06:09:50 +0100

Hi Vijay,

All in all there's the question of prioritization of new work items. We 
cannot do everything at the same time that efficiently. The WG needs to 
focus on completing a finite set of things, adding too much would hurt 
IMHO.

<chair hat off>

I also think that the PF_KEY interface in general needs more work than 
extending it to support MIPv6. The PF_KEY interface hasn't been revised 
to match the revised IPsec architecture described in RFC4301, and the 
IKEv2 protocol described in RFC4306. It also does not allow 
manipulating the SPD, although one might say the SPD needs not be 
modified by processes. Thus, IMHO the first thing to do is to revise 
PF_KEY to reflect the updated IPsec specifications, before we engage in 
extending to support MIPv6. Since the scope of that work exceeds the 
MEXT WG expertise, a more suitable place to carry on that work should 
be found, and mobility people can then bring their input there.

--julien