Subject: RE: [Mip6] comments on chakrabarti-mip6-bmip

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 15:51:22 +0200

James,

> > I am not sure whether the relationship between the MN and its HA is
> > similar to the email client and public email server.
> > The stability and protection of HA is very critcal in the operation of MIP
> > service.
> >
> 
> Different business models may provide different levels of guarantees for
> stability and protection. If I'm running a standard telcom voice + data
> service provider, I might want to provide rock solid guarantees that the
> mobility service is five 9's reliable. Of course, I would probably also
> charge for that kind of reliablity. On the other hand, if I'm running a low
> cost public access mobility service, maybe I can get by with four 9's or
> even three. Any solution to HA bootstrapping that picks and chooses one
> business model over the other should be avoided. Please see RFC 3724 for a
> discussion of tussles in Internet standardization and the need for
> maintaining a neutral playing field.

A small comment - an email server is different than an HA, operating at
different points of the stack, for different purposes, so I wouldn't want
to extend this example too far.

It might be more reasonable to discuss what level of confidentiality is needed,
in general & on the Internet, than on discussing business models.  I think
the goal is to try to get a general bootstrapping solution that works on the
Internt that is robust and not subject to DoS attacks.  Perhaps this could
be discussed in the security considerations of the chakrabarti-mip6-bmip
draft.

John

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

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 16:56:46 -0800

hi john,

if the word "business model" seems inappropriate, then do:

s/business model/deployment model"

on line 1 of the message.

enterprises whose business may have nothing to do with it may also choose a
particular deployment model that would require a different kind of
bootstrapping.

            jak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 5:51 AM
Subject: RE: [Mip6] comments on chakrabarti-mip6-bmip

James,

It might be more reasonable to discuss what level of confidentiality is
needed,

John

---

From: "Marc Manthey [c]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 02:16:14 +0100

> particular deployment model that would require a different kind of

full ack

marc
>>> The stability and protection of HA is very critcal in the operation 
>>> of
> MIP
>>> service.
>>>
>>
>> charge for that kind of reliablity. On the other hand, if I'm running 
>> a
> low

-- 
---------------------[ Ciphire Signature ]----------------------
From: [email-masked] signed email body (1747 characters)
Date: on 20 January 2005 at 01:16:12 GMT
To:   [email-masked]
----------------------------------------------------------------
: Ciphire has secured this email against identity theft.
: Free download at www.ciphire.com. The garbled lines
: below are the sender's verifiable digital signature.
----------------------------------------------------------------
00fAAAAAEAAABcBu9B0wYAAOgCAAIAAgACACB6JPkJDS62Le8oatOMQgStHHYFEn
RrUxGm+dM7rZFzYQEAqQIYiEaREG7NTj6qvVA1V1Wx1zkNR3St/6icsOFZQ9Soqh
f8Zc5auZd8uWxuNW5CZeCqnkLrL5Z4rBSm+qDrLg==
------------------[ End Ciphire Signed Message ]----------------