Subject: [mobile-ip] Mobile IP v6 next steps

From: Phil Roberts <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 18:51:27 -0400

The WG chairs have been working with the IESG to progress the work on the
MIPv6 draft.  Thomas and Erik have agreed to shepherd this draft through the
IESG process.  The goal is to produce a solution for securing binding
updates, update the draft to incorporate that solution, and progress the
draft through the IESG to Proposed Standard very quickly, certainly before
the 51st IETF in London if at all possible.

The process for achieving this is becoming clear.  Based on discussions
generated around the rejection of the current draft due to the concerns
about securing binding updates, some members of the IESG and the IAB and the
working group chairs have begun refining the requirements that should be
satisfied to provide a reasonable level of security for Mobile IP v6.  This
will be the set of requirements to form the basis of the IESG's approval of
that part of the Mobile IP v6 spec and will be shared as soon as there is
good consensus.  All proposals for securing Mobile IP v6 specs will be
measured against this set of requirements.

Then a group of security experts and implementers will put together a
solution that meets all the requirements, and the draft editor will update
the draft to include this solution in the Mobile IP v6 spec.  The draft will
then go through working group and a new IETF last call as normal and the
draft will be sent to the IESG for approval.

---

From: "Phil Neumiller" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 05:35:06 -0500

Some comments below.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Phil Roberts" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 5:51 PM
Subject: [mobile-ip] Mobile IP v6 next steps

> the 51st IETF in London if at all possible.

1).  There is an old adage, "haste makes waste".  I find this to be
       particularly true of security software.  It typically takes years
       to get the kinks worked out.  Why is it that the 51st IETF is such
       a magical date?

> measured against this set of requirements.

2).  This sounds pretty good.  I guess I wonder if a joint security area / MIP
      WG design team might not have been a better choice of a team for the
       formulation of the requirements draft though.

> draft will be sent to the IESG for approval.

3). This is where I imagine that old cartoon "then a miracle happens".  In my
      limited experience (once started a failed security software venture in
      the early 90s (midnight engineering)), security software is very VERY
      hard, especially if  *new* requirements have to be met.  It is difficult
      enough to harden security software when a known secure algorithm
      (I mean stuff that has beem crypto-analyzed by lots of experts) is used let
      alone to introduce a new one with new requirements and expect it to
      be cryptographically secure.  It seems a bit unclear to me how the MIP
      WG is to accomplish this and all its other work by IETF 51 without some
       kind of super human capabilities.

Best Regards,

-pdn