Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] WG last call: draft-ietf-mobileip-mipv6-ha-ipsec- 01.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 11:48:58 -0500

> 
> If interoperability problems would result from people not 
> implementing the contents of the draft, then I think it should 
> be standards track.

The companion IPsec draft simply explains configuration aspects and
not really protocol enhancements. So I believe this should be informational.

> 
> As for the process question, that can be handled.
> 
>             jak
> 

-Basavaraj

---

From: Keiichi SHIMA / 島慶一 <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 12:31:42 +0900 (JST)

Hi,

Did anyone ask the ipsec wg about draft-ietf-mobileip-mipv6-ha-ipsec-
01.txt?

I'm not sure if we can go forward with this mechanism without
reviewing by some ipsec specialists.

---
Keiichi SHIMA
IIJ Research Laboratory <[email-masked]>
KAME Project <[email-masked]>

---

From: Keiichi SHIMA / 島慶一 <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 17:49:43 +0900 (JST)

I'm sorry I am too impolite.

From: Keiichi SHIMA <[email-masked]>

> reviewing by some ipsec specialists.

I know there are many ipsec specialists in this mobile ip wg.  But I'm
afraid the most offnensive people are not in our wg, but in the ipsec
wg.  Is it better to make the draft being reviewed by other ipsec
people who are not in this wg?

---
Keiichi SHIMA

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 16:50:05 +0200

> I'm sorry I am too impolite.

No Keiichi, I think it was a good point and we should do
it. I'll do it. But I have to ask something. You wrote:

 > I have interpreted this draft as some kind of a light weight key
 > exchange machanism specialized to mobile ipv6 or utilizes mobile ipv6
 > characteristics.  Such an approach must be taken with care.

Why do you say that we are defining a key exchange mechanism?
In my understanding we were basically explaining how to set
up the SPD configuration. The only thing comes even close to
key exchange was our decision to set the tunnel endpoints
dynamically, but that doesn't say anything about the keying.

Jari

---

From: Keiichi SHIMA / 島慶一 <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 16:48:28 +0900 (JST)

Hi,

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>

> dynamically, but that doesn't say anything about the keying.

Ah yes, exactly.  We can use the same SAs (means no key exchanging).
The draft only updates SPD entries...I have been confused.

But anyway, we should check changing SPD entries is OK or not.  I have
seen that you send the draft to the ipsec wg.  I hope many useful
sugessions from them.

By the way, I am not still fully convinced by the draft.  I have
reread the latest version and have thought for a while have discussed
with our colleague.

I have summarized my observation about the draft.  I will send it to
this ml in another mail.

---
Keiichi SHIMA