Re: : The Diameter Maintanence and Extentions WG proposed charter

Hi vidya,

On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 09:07:05PM -0600, Vidya Narayanan wrote:
> All,
> Sorry, I've been in email transition and have been a little late in
> catching up with all the emails.
> 
> I agree with Hannes and John that we can make a decision once we have
> the details clearer.

 I also agree. I was just trying to catch where we were now.

> As far as mip6 is concerned, even though there are the two
> bootstrapping drafts, the work on auth protocol bootstrapping is yet
> to be done. So, I don't think we know all the AAA requirements just
> yet. To write separate AAA documents to handle each case would be a
> waste.
> 
> I'm still not fully clear on why we cannot just re-use the Diameter
> NASREQ application for FMIPv6 if that is what mip6 is using. 

 what do you mean by 'if that is what mip6 is using' ?

> Where the
> NAS is located is different in each case, but that doesn't seem to be
> a major issue to me.
> 
> Perhaps, we should plan on having a discussion at the next IETF with
> the relevant mobility folks and collect requirements - that would be a
> good start.

 yes, that's a good idea.

 Julien

> 
> Thanks,
> Vidya
> 
> On 12/1/05, Tschofenig, Hannes <[email protected]> wrote:
> > hi julien,
> >
> > to me it still seems that we do not understand all details yet and therefore i am not sure whether we need a new application for either fmip or mip6 aaa interaction.
> >
> > cannot we make a decision about one or two documents once we know the details much better?
> >
> > ciao
> > hannes
> >
> > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > > Von: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > Im Auftrag von Julien Bournelle
> > > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 1. Dezember 2005 11:36
> > > An: Tschofenig, Hannes
> > > Cc: Julien Bournelle; [email protected];
> > > [email protected]; [email protected]
> > > Betreff: Re: [AAA-WG]: The Diameter Maintanence and
> > > Extentions WG proposed charter
> > >
> > > Hi hannes,
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 10:57:13AM +0100, Tschofenig, Hannes wrote:
> > > > hi julien,
> > > >
> > > > we are not fully sure what fmip and mip really requires.
> > >
> > >  for mip6 bootstrapping, we have 2 solutions: integrated and split.
> > >
> > >  In
> > >  the integrated scenario, we assume that the MN is authenticated for
> > >  network access and thus we implicitely assume that Diameter
> > > NASREQ/EAP
> > >  is used. At the end of the authentication, the AAAH sends a
> > > HA address
> > >  to the NAS. So, a priori we only need this AVP.
> > >
> > >  In the split scenario, the AAA exchange occurs between the
> > > HA and AAA.
> > >  And IKEv2 is used between MN and HA. So Diameter EAP should be used
> > >  between HA and the AAA to carry the EAP packets. As it is a
> > > HA and not
> > >  a NAS, we "may" define a specific application.
> > >
> > >  for fmip6, we might reuse Diameter NASREQ, but why not define a new
> > >  Diameter Application since what we want to do is really do
> > > AAA for the
> > >  FMIP6 service and not for network access.
> > >
> > > > we have started with some thoughts but more input is needed.
> > >
> > >  I agree
> > > >
> > > > i do not see a problem with the fact that the protocols are
> > > developed in
> > > > different working groups.
> > >
> > >  the only problem that I can see is time. Maybe of one these
> > > 2 WGs might
> > >  require AAA before the other. If we have a single document,
> > > we'll have
> > >  to wait for both agreements. that's just my concern.
> > >
> >
> >
> > ciao
> > hannes
> >
> > >  Julien
> > >
> > > >
> > > > ciao
> > > > hannes
> > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 11:07:21AM +0200,
> > > > > [email protected] wrote:
> > > > > > Julien,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> For the purposes of the DiME WG proposal, I think I am
> > > > > still lumping
> > > > > > >> MIPv6, FMIPv6 & MIPv6 bootstrapping into one topic.  I
> > > > > think having a
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> single AAA document that addresses these points probably
> > > > > would be
> > > > > > >> useful.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't think that we can have one document for all these
> > > > > > > things. You  can use Mobile IPv6 without FMIP6.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I look at FMIPv6 as an optional extension for MIPv6.  So,
> > > > > if you need
> > > > > > AAA support for FMIPv6, then you probably will need to
> > > also have AAA
> > > > > > support for MIPv6.  However, if you are looking at only
> > > MIPv6, then
> > > > > > any extensions to support FMIPv6 would be purely optional.
> > > > >
> > > > >  yes you're right.
> > > > >
> > > > >   On the other hand, what makes me think that 2 documents could be
> > > > >   better are the following arguments:
> > > > >
> > > > >   - FMIP6 is from the mipshop WG whereas MIP6 is from the
> > > mip6 WG.
> > > > >   - FMIP6 probably requires a new Diameter Application
> > > whereas MIP6
> > > > >     bootstrapping requires only AVPs.
> > > > >
> > > > >  Julien
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> However, as the MIP/FMIP work is still on-going, we can
> > > > > address this
> > > > > > >> after there is consensus in the mobility-related WGs
> > > about what
> > > > > > >> specifically is needed.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Does this sound reasonable?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It sounds totally reasonable.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Good.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > John
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > julien.bournelle at int-evry.fr
> > > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > julien.bournelle at int-evry.fr
> > >
> >

-- 
julien.bournelle at int-evry.fr