Subject: Kuntal's comments on the split document (was: Re: [Mip6] Conclusion of the consensus call relatedtothebootstrapping I-Ds)

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 13:37:08 -0700

Alright. If you want to discuss the split document then let's do it (note 
change in thread header).

[KC>] Which part of my statement you found to be "emotional"? Is it the
"rather useless" part? In my opinion, the split scenario solution
document has some things that are totally out of scope of mip6
bootstrapping (e.g. the dynamic DNS update). Moreover, the HA
bootstrapping is based on DNS query which has security issues. Anybody
in the public internet can discover operator's HAs. This is a security
hole that the split solution introduces. These are NOT emotional
statements :-). I am just expressing how I feel about the split solution
document, that's all.

jak>> These are your opinions, and I would say they are rather emotionally 
expressed (my opinion, of course).

jak>> The goals of the split document are different from the intergrated 
document. The split document is primarily for enterprises and for businesses 
that have as their primary business providing mobility service only (hence 
the name). Since such businesses are new, they are likely to be 
entrepreneurial. They're not going to have the time or resources to run 
around to various different SDOs and try to force their solutions to get 
locked into the standards. The split solution is designed to provide them 
with interoperability. It is possible for integrated wireless service 
providers to use the split solution, of course, possibly as an additional 
revenue generator for providing mobility service to customers that use a 
different access network provider.

jak>> Regarding the security issues of DNS, we've been through this issue a 
number of times, the draft was reviewed by SAAG (we have yet to respond) and 
there was nothing said about it, so I am puzzled why you are raising this 
canard again. We recently had a good (and I might add nonemotional) 
discussion on this list about using anycast, initiated by Jean-Marie, and 
I've drafted some text up that will allow anycast addresses to be used in 
DNS SRV RRs instead of the unicast addresses of the HAs, based on Francis's 
draft, and sent the text to Gerardo (he's on vacation at the moment). This 
should provide some moderate protection from DoS, but it will not protect 
completely, just as the DHCP solution won't. As I've pointed out in the 
past, as soon as you release the address of a server to an end host, 
regardless of how it is done, all bets are off. What the end host does with 
that address is completely out of your control, and if the end host is 
infected with malware, you can be sure somebody's botnet will get the 
address. Or are you proposing some enhancement to the DHCP based solution 
that will make it impossible for malware to grab a home agent's address?

> HL prefix etc. Integrated scenario is likely to be widely deployed,
> where as the split scenario doesn't even have any buyer.
>
> jak>> I think you mean draft-jang will be widely deployed. As I recall
> someone posted email a while back saying that there was no plan by any
> other
> SDO to adopt the integrated draft as is, just the two draft-jang DHCP
> enhancements.
>
[KC>] Unfortunately, here you are making your argument based on some
rumor that you heard about real SDO requirements. Please use official
liaison channels to confirm SDO requirements before posting comments on
the mailing list.

jak>> OK. Would any of our liasons like to comment on this? Is the system 
architecture described in the integrated draft what your SDO is planning on 
standardizing?

> So, if you want to go down this path, we will end up making both the
> documents informational. If not both of them should remain standards
> track.
>
> jak>> We're not discussing the split draft here. If you want to
propose
> changing it, then start a separate thread.
>
[KC>] We need to discuss how useful the split scenario draft is. Also to
be fair, we need to make a decision about informational vs. standards
track suitability for _both_ the documents if that's what the WG ends up
deciding. That's what I meant to say here.

jak>> Then why didn't you start a separate thread on it? This is basic IETF 
courtesy. Kuntal, you've been around IETF long enough to know these kinds of 
things.

            jak 

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

---

From: "Chowdhury, Kuntal" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 16:13:11 -0400

> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Kempf [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 1:29 PM
> To: Chowdhury, Kuntal; Alper Yegin; Basavaraj Patil; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Mip6] Conclusion of the consensus call
> relatedtothebootstrapping I-Ds
> 
> Kuntal,
> 
> 
> [KC>] The problem statements for mip6 bootstrapping talks about two
> scenarios split and integrated. We have two I-Ds for each scenario.
Now,
> you are questioning the need for a solution document for the
integrated
> scenario to be standards track document or not. What about split
> scenario document? The split scenario document is nothing but a
> framework with a handful of (rather useless) things like DNS update
and
> 
> jak>> Let's try to avoid emotional language, shall we? We're trying to
> determine what would be the best role for this document, in terms of
its
> potential customers.

propose

> jak>> The integrated draft has some protocol enhancements, in Sections
> 3.5.1
> and 3.5.2. These could be separated out into a separate, PS draft,
just as
> the WG has decided to do with draft-jang, and the system description
in
> the
> rest of the draft could be published as Informational, with perhaps
some
> additional work to complete the survey of what other SDOs are doing.
That
> way, the other SDOs could pick and choose what part of the DHCP
solution
> they want to standardize and how to combine them, and the integrated
draft
> could serve as a documentation of how other SDOs are using DHCP
> bootstrapping in their system architecture. This seems to be more
> consistent
> with the way most WG members seem to want the DHCP solution to be
> standardized.
> 
>             jak
> 

"This email message and any attachments are confidential information of Starent Networks, Corp. The information transmitted may not be used to create or change any contractual obligations of Starent Networks, Corp.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this e-mail and its attachments by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately -- by replying to this message or by sending an email to [email-masked] -- and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments without reading or disclosing their contents. Thank you."