Subject: [Seamoby] Terminology Draft Needed

From: "Phil Neumiller" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 09:39:14 -0500

Hi,

I have seen Charlie pull out the terminology draft at least a few times! :-)  Why can't 
some WG chair in SeaMoby or MANET adopt it as WG draft?

http://people.nokia.net/~charliep/txt/seamoby/term.txt

It seems that many times arguments are over terminology.  IMO, I would like to 
the SeaMoby WG become a bridge between MANET and MIP technologies, 
especially with respect to AR discovery and CT.  This terminology draft would make
a very nice addition to the SeaMoby WG draft list.  

Best regards,

Phil

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

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 09:18:53 -0800

Phil,

Pat and I were planning on sending a message out about this. I had asked
Charlie for a pointer to
the draft, you have helpfully supplied it (see below). Thanx.

So we have one strong endorsement of adopting the Charlie's terminology
draft as a WG item.
Anyone else have strong feelings one way or the other on the issue?

            jak

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 09:57:16 -0800

OK, taking off my WG chair hat...

I strongly support this. There have been two cases recently
in which mobility related terminology has been responsible for:

1) Delaying the release of a draft to the IESG after
it passed WG last call,

2) Delaying the movement of a draft to RFC.

I believe we need a consistent set of terminology for
mobility, and, as Pat has noted in another message,
I think the terminology draft should pay special attention
to security. In particular, it should contain a map of
security terms in general use by the mobile networks
community (i.e. cellular) to standard IETF terminology.

            jak

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
To: "Phil Neumiller" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 9:18 AM
Subject: Re: [Seamoby] Terminology Draft Needed

> > It seems that many times arguments are over terminology.  IMO, I
would
> like to

---

From: Jukka Manner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 08:33:51 +0200 (EET)

Hi,

	as I am the editor of the terminology draft, I would like to
continue the work me and my colleagues started a year ago (yes, the
terminology draft is today 1 year and 6 days old). Since the document is
already 28 pages long, I would rather add only a bare minimal set of
security terminology, only the ones absolutely needed in
Seamoby/MIP/MANET---a full security terminology would belong to another
WG.

	Second, the pointer Charlie gave is false. It is the old version
from summer, although it somehow has the "03" in the name... hmm... A new
version has been on the IETF draft repository since November. This is the
right version to discuss:

        Title           : Mobility Related Terminology
        Author(s)       : J. Manner et al.
        Filename        : draft-manner-seamoby-terms-03.txt
        Pages           : 28
        Date            : 28-Nov-01

There is a need for common definitions of terminology in the work to
be done around IP mobility. This memo defines terms for mobility
related terminology. It is intended as a living document for use by
the Seamoby working group, and especially for use in Seamoby drafts
and in WG discussions. Other working groups dealing with mobility may
also take advantage of this terminology

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-manner-seamoby-terms-03.txt

	Regards,

	Jukka

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 09:18:03 -0800

Jukka,

The issue is the following. Due to a difference between the security
terminology used in RFC 2002, which was also used in
draft-mobileip-ietf-aaa-key-08.txt, and standard IETF security
terminology, there was a misunderstanding about
the nature of the solution in the AAA keys draft that led the IESG
security reviewer to reject the draft. For example,
nowhere in the AAA keys draft does it talk about a session key, but, if
you read the draft, that is really what it is about. Since
the security terminology in RFC 2002 is, in some sense, fairly standard
in the mobile networking community,
it has been suggested that the terminology draft include a short (it
need not be lengthy) mapping between the
terminology used in RFC 2002 and standard IETF security terminology to
avoid this problem in the future.

Do you think this is doable?

            jak

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jukka Manner" <[email-masked]>
To: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Phil Neumiller" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 10:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Seamoby] Terminology Draft Needed

would

---

From: Jukka Manner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 10:45:27 +0200 (EET)

Hi,

	I never meant to deny any security terminology from the draft. Of
course some key mobile/wireless specific terms/interpretations should be
there, I agree. It is doable, if "someone does it"...:) Perhaps Charlie
could edit a brief RFC 2002 security terminology for this terminology
draft?

	Jim