Subject: RE: [Mip6] Consensus call: draft-giaretta-mip6-aaa-ha-goals-00.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 15:31:22 -0600

>Before we get to listing the requirements, we (MIP6 WG) should identify
>different frameworks where "mip6" gets mixed up with "aaa". Following
>that, we can discuss which one of the frameworks we'd like to
>standardize in IETF, and drive the requirements based on that.

Okay. I think it is possible to have a discussion of the frameworks
based on your I-D on the ML in a constrained timeframe and proceed to
the next step of identifying what are the requirements for AAA-MIP6
network elements interactions. 
>
>This was the motivation behind writing draft-yegin-mip6-aaa-fwk-00.txt.
>4 different frameworks are mentioned in that I-D, with one being
>detailed. 

The I-D can be a good source for the discussion itself and then we can
simply choose to incorporate the one that we agree on as the basis for
the goals I-D. 

>
>I have no objection to using mip6-aaa-ha-goals, but I recommend we
>capture the framework discussions. For that, my recommendation is to
>produce a WG I-D combining both individual I-Ds.

Not sure if we really need to do a merge of the I-Ds here. I think we
can have a discussion on the list about the frameworks that you
propose in your I-D and then based on consensus we can incorporate the
one that we agree on in the giaretta draft as a section.

>
>Besides, mip6-aaa-fwk has detailed discussions on call flow (good for
>finding out the exact requirements), EAP considerations, why we need a
>new AAA application, and relation to mip6 bootstrapping -- which are
>worth capturing in the WG I-D.

Some of this can go in an appendix of the giaretta draft.

>Alper

-Basavaraj

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

---

From: Alper Yegin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 15:25:43 -0800

> network elements interactions.

The implications of some of the frameworks are not confined to a AAA-HA
interface. For example, delivery of MIP6 information to NAS calls for
new attributes for AAA server-to-NAS communication (as opposed to AAA
server to HA, which requires a new AAA application). We shall capture
those in the WG document as well.

> one that we agree on in the giaretta draft as a section.

I'm not suggesting a full merge or anything, but to make sure we address
various issues and angles thoroughly. If someone wants to rewrite
things, I don't mind :-) 

> Some of this can go in an appendix of the giaretta draft.

I think some of these discussions are for the main text. For example,
the relation to MIP6 bootstrapping must be spelled out. Some parts of
the mip6-aaa-ha draft gives the impression that such an interface
handles the MIP6 bootstrapping single-handedly. That's not always the
case. Also, I think we need some words on why we need a new AAA
application when we already have MIP4 and EAP applications. 

For framework classification, here are my slides:
http://yegin.org/IETF/MIP6-AAA-fwk.ppt. This is what I missed to present
at IETF 61.

Alper