Subject: [Mip6] Consensus Call: Standardizing the auth protocol [I-D: draft-ietf-mip6-auth-protocol-00.txt]

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 17:02:55 -0500

This is a consensus call to the WG on the issue of standardizing the
authentication-data-suboption mechanism for performing a binding between the
MN and HA. The issue has been discussed on the WG mailing list over
the last few weeks. The I-D
(draft-patil-mip6-whyauthdataoption-00.txt) has captured some of the
arguments, but there are several others that have been made on the
list as well. A summary of the discussion was sent out earlier and is
captured in :
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mip6/current/msg01690.html

The proposal here (in brief) is to standardize a mechanism specified
in I-D draft-ietf-mip6-auth-protocol-00.txt for performing MIP6
registration with a home agent. RFC3775 specifies the use of IPsec to
secure the binding update/ACK messages between the MN and HA. The
auth-protocol mechanism relies on the use of an
authentication-data-suboption and does not require the MN-HA to
establish an IPsec SA.  
(For the discussion that has ensued so far, please refer to the MIP6
ML archives)

The question to the WG is:

1. Should we standardize the authentication protocol specified in I-D
   draft-ietf-mip6-auth-protocol-00.txt as an alternative (to the
   IPSec mechanism specified in RFC3775/6) means to securing the BUs
   and BAcks between the MN and HA. Note that this solution is an
   additional mechanism for doing registration with an HA and does not
   deprecate the currently specified solution. 

   Yes	     [ ]
   No	     [ ]

The consensus call will close on October 12th, 2004.

-Chairs

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

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 15:39:36 -0700

Lacking any Security Directorate review opinion on this, I must regrettably
vote NO. I would, however, support pursuing the draft as an informational
RFC for 3GPP2 use only.

            jak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 3:02 PM
Subject: [Mip6] Consensus Call: Standardizing the auth protocol
[I-D:draft-ietf-mip6-auth-protocol-00.txt]

   Yes      [ ]
   No      [ ]

-Chairs

---

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 15:46:53 -0700

I don't know if you wanted the mailing list to be cc'ed.
But here it goes:

>    No	     [XXX]

    Erik

---

From: gabriel montenegro <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 16:11:33 -0700

> vote NO. I would, however, support pursuing the draft as an informational

Agree. I know in the past the security ADs have been quite adamant about using
IPsec. As to how to obtain the SA for use by IPsec, well, my feeling is that
they have been much more flexible.

Vote: NO. And the suggestion to pursue as non-standards track seems fine.

-gabriel

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 10:42:05 +0200

In your previous mail you wrote:

   
      Yes	     [ ]
      No	     [X]
   
Regards

[email-masked]

---

From: Alpesh <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 09:45:05 -0700

My vote is YES for the draft.

-a

---

From: "Charles E.Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 18:05:22 -0700

Hello Basavaraj,

I vote YES to have such an authentication mechanism.

I am interpreting this NOT as last call on the
specific draft, but as a way to determine whether
such a feature is needed.

Regards,
Charlie P.

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 14:17:13 +0300

YES, primarily on the grounds of benefits for AAA integration,
dynamic addressing, etc (not to mention requirements from people
who intend to use our protocols).

I have some nits on the current document contents, but I
presume those issues can be worked out.

--Jari

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 10:27:39 -0700

Yes to the concept of using a mobility option to authenticate
the BU.

but not the current drafts.

Vijay

---

From: "Jean-Michel COMBES" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 14:40:44 +0200

Hi,

As I am afraid of the consequences to have 2 different solutions to solve
the same problem (management from the operator and the client point of view,
cost to implement them), I prefer to vote :

    Yes	     [ ]
    No	     [X]

Regards.

JMC.

France Telecom - R&D Division - MAPS/NSS   
Jean-Michel COMBES, Internet/Intranet Security
E-Mail: [email-masked]
Phone: +33 (0)1 45 29 45 94
Fax: +33 (0)1 45 29 65 19
Mobile: +33 (0)6 07 29 30 16 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> Behalf Of [email-masked]
> Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 12:03 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Mip6] Consensus Call: Standardizing the auth 
> protocol [I-D:draft-ietf-mip6-auth-protocol-00.txt]
> 
> 
>

---

From: Wing Cheong Lau <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 10:48:52 -0700

>    deprecate the currently specified solution.

I vote YES.

Regards,

Wing Lau

---

From: Brian Haley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 19:45:47 -0400

I vote NO.

-Brian

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 08:33:30 +0300 (EEST)

>    deprecate the currently specified solution. 

Btw. what's the deal with current influx of people voicing their
opinions in the concensus call who have never before written a single
message to the list?  Looks like room packing to me.  Luckily enough,
the IETF procedures allow the chairs to take these kind of issues into
consideration.

-- 
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: "Charles E. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 23:27:31 -0700

Hello Pekka,

Perhaps you were referring to my vote.  Is it enough that
I followed every e-mail to the list?  Or would it matter if
I thought that this was much closer to the spirit of the
protocol compared to the brute force fit into the current
IPsec gerrymandering?

I didn't see any evidence of the room-packing you
suggest.  I know that no one told me how to vote.

However, I would agree with you that the chairs
probably know how to handle the situation.

Regards,
Charlie P.

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 09:52:39 +0300 (EEST)

This is already off-topic, and I won't follow up on this thread 
further, but I think you deserve an explicit reply..

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004, Charles E. Perkins wrote:
> I followed every e-mail to the list? [...]

I certainly wasn't referring to you, Charlie. :-)

It was just a general observation I had from looking at who have
responded, and comparing it to 1 year's backlog of email from the list
:-).

I'm not saying that one shouldn't voice an opinion when asked but..  
it kind of makes one wonder never the less...

---

From: Yoshihiro Ohba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 22:08:29 -0400

>    deprecate the currently specified solution. 

Note that while I did not express my opinion on the mailing list, I
expressed my opinion in terms of re-keying in the last MIP6 WG
meeting.

Yoshihiro Ohba

---

From: "Mohan Parthasarathy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 09:36:13 -0700

No. I would vote for an informational draft for3gpp2.

-mohan

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 3:02 PM
Subject: [Mip6] Consensus Call: Standardizing the auth protocol [I-D:draft-ietf-mip6-auth-protocol-00.txt]

   Yes      [ ]
   No      [ ]

-Chairs

---

From: Rajeev Koodli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 16:57:51 -0700

YES, mainly because a deployed base of authentication
infrastructure exists, and potential for large-scale MIP6
deployment.

-Rajeev