Subject: [Mip6] Consensus call: DHCPv6 options for bootstrapping

From: Basavaraj Patil <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 15:57:44 -0500

Hello,

We have been debating the issue of how to specify the DHCP options
needed for bootstrapping for a while now and have not been able to
reach any conclusions. This issue was discussed at the WG meeting at
IETF66 and has been debated on the mailing list as well.

I-Ds of interest here:
a. MIP6-bootstrapping via DHCPv6 for the Integrated Scenario
   draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-integrated-dhc-01.txt

b. DHCP Option for Home Information Discovery in MIPv6
   draft-jang-mip6-hiopt-00.txt

Issue: MIP6 bootstrapping can be done using DHCPv6. The WG document
(draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-integrated-dhc-01) describes the use of
DHCP in the integrated scenario. In order to use DHCP for
bootstrapping several DHCP options need to be specified. The WG I-D in
section 3.5 has specified a couple of DHCPv6 options. I-D
draft-jang-mip6-hiopt-00 specifies several other DHCP options which
are essential for bootstrapping.

The issue is if the DHCP options need to be specified
    (i) as part of the solution I-D describing bootstraping using DHCP
    or 
    (ii) in a separate document which would then be referenced by the
    bootstrapping with DHCP solution doc.

We are seeking WG consensus in order to resolve the issue. Please
express your opinion w.r.t the approaches mentioned below:

Options:

1. Have a single document which specifies the solution describing
   bootstrapping with DHCPv6 which includes the DHCPv6 options that
   are needed.

2. Specify the DHCP options needed for bootstrapping with DHCPv6 in a
   separate document and have this referenced in the solution I-D.

Please submit your preference to the list by Aug 14th, 06.

-Raj

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

---

From: Julien Bournelle <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 10:12:44 +0200

Hi all,

 I would prefer option (ii).

 regards,

 Julien Bournelle

-- 
julien.bournelle at int-evry.fr

---

From: "Alper Yegin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 13:43:05 +0300

>    bootstrapping with DHCPv6 which includes the DHCPv6 options that

I have been trying very hard explaining that the integrated bootstrapping
solution is not "solution describing bootstrapping with DHCPv6."

If anyone wants to name the solutions that way, it'd be "solution describing
bootstrapping with DHCPv6, RADIUS, Diameter, EAP, IKEv2". 

Sigh.....

Whether this is fixed or not, my vote is for 2 (considering what is really
meant for it).

>    separate document and have this referenced in the solution I-D.

Alper

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 15:06:14 +0300 (EEST)

>   separate document and have this referenced in the solution I-D.

Does DHC WG (which has to do significant review for the document) have 
an opinion on this ?

If I were a member of DHC WG and knew nothing (and didn't want to know 
for that matter) about MIPv6, I'd argue for 2...

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: "Ram O V Vishnu-A14676" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 21:55:25 +0800

I have been following the discussions & I am for option-2.

Regards,
Vishnu.

Motorola 
+91 9844178052

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 10:11:26 -0700

Number 1.

            jak

---

From: "Hirschman, Brent B [CTO]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 14:04:16 -0500

I support option 2.

Brent Hirschman
Technology Development Strategist III
Global Technology Standards
KSOPHD0504-5D178
6220 Sprint Parkway, Overland Park, KS 66251
Voice 913-794-4271  FAX 913-794-0420
PCS 913-593-6221
[email-masked]
IMPORTANT: This message (including any attachments) may contain
material, non-public information or proprietary information and is for
the intended recipients only. If you are not the intended recipient, you
should notify the sender and delete this message. Any disclosure,
copying, or use of this information is strictly prohibited and may
subject you to legal liability. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Basavaraj Patil [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 3:58 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Mip6] Consensus call: DHCPv6 options for bootstrapping

Hello,

I-Ds of interest here:

Options:

-Raj

---

From: Soohong Daniel Park <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 10:52:11 +0900

Option (2)

If MIP6 makes a clear consensus now, then DHC WG 
will take this option accordingly. A separated document
is a good choice for further details...

Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park)
Mobile Convergence Laboratory, SAMSUNG Electronics.

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 00:30:28 +0300

For what its worth, I do not really have a preference. It seems that
we can achieve what we need either way. If the option is in the
main document it does not prevent independent use (and I would
personally be happy to see that the option can be used without
AAA). If the option is in its own document it does not relieve
the WG from the requirement of being able to explain what
the bigger picture is. Reviewers from, say, the DHC WG need
to understand at least some of the system view. Similarly,
the data carried by the option(s) needs to be fully specified
in both cases. Content is dictated by the working group,
chairs have the power to pick editors etc.

But I would like the working group to make this decision
and move on. You are spending a lot of energy on a
documentation issue as opposed to the technical work.

--Jari

---

From: JinHyeock Choi <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 22:21:07 +0900

I am for option 2. 

Best Regards

JinHyeock

---

From: Myung-Ki Shin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 13:27:56 +0900

I favor option 2.

Thanks,
Myung-Ki,
ETRI