Subject: [CCAMP] LMP-bis RFC

From: Vishwas Manral <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 21:11:09 -0700

Hi folks,

Based on feedback from the list and chairs I am planning to respin the
RFC4204. Here are the main isues identified:

1. Config Retransmit algorithm is broken and causes LMP Control
Channel to never come up in some cases.
2. Hello Negotiation needs to be clarified.
3. Multiple issues with IPv6 both for TE_LINK as well as DATA_LINK.
4. Message_ID usage clarity.
5. More clarity about Test messages in case of packet networks but
seperate data and control plane.

Do let me know of other issues you may have?

Thanks,
Vishwas

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 07:19:35 -0400

Vishwas,
	A question for the WG will be is whether to do a 4204-bis or to just
document just the issues and changes.  I think it would be helpful to
start with the latter so there is a clear understanding of the changes
being proposed.  Based on the scope of those changes, the WG then can
decide if we should have a bis or an update.

Much thanks,
Lou

On 3/16/2010 12:11 AM, Vishwas Manral wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
> 
> 
>

---

From: Richard Graveman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 07:36:44 -0400

> Do let me know of other issues you may have?

I completely agree with the approach to security, but I have two comments:

1. The references are out of date. Most of the security references
have been updated or replaced, and improved methods are now available
and recommended. These updates actually simplify what need to be said.

2. The statement "confidentiality is not needed" seems to me an
over-reach. In my view, that is a question for the environment in
which the protocol is deployed, not for the protocol designer. It may
be true in many cases, but with the security mechanisms defined,
confidentiality is not a big deal--it comes along with little extra
design.

I would be glad to contribute text for this section at the appropriate time.

Richard Graveman

---

From: Vishwas Manral <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 07:40:56 -0700

Hi Lou,

Thanks for your inputs. It sounds like a reasonable approach and will
make the draft accordingly.

The only reason I was going in for a bis version was because I thought
there were some grave errors I found which may require that the base
RFC itself be updated.

Thanks,
Vishwas

---

From: Vishwas Manral <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 07:43:55 -0700

Hi Richard,

I will certainly take your help when I get there!!! I agree the
references are now out of date (RFC2401 instead of 4301 etc).

We can still discuss the confidentiality part and why it may be
required for LMP.

Thanks,
Vishwas