Re: [MEXT] FW: Agenda requests for Prague meeting
Alexandru Petrescu <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.nemo |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Le 22/03/2011 17:41, [email protected] a écrit : > > Alex, > > > On 3/22/11 10:37 AM, "ext Alexandru Petrescu" > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Le 22/03/2011 15:52, marcelo bagnulo braun a écrit : >>> so, you ave downgraded you statement of several itemS being non >>> MIP related and all the DMM discussion being non MIP related to >>> just one single agenda item... >> >> You asked one, I told one. >> >> Another is the 3rd item (HAC is not a Mobile IPv6 entity, TLS is >> not a MIP6 Type Code, etc.) > > Over the past several meetings we have discussed the idea of creating > alternate security frameworks for Mobile IPv6. The WG was rechartered > subsequently. Please see the following in the charter: "The MEXT WG > will also explore experimental alternative security mechanisms. " I-D > draft-ietf-mext-mip6-tls-00.txt is a different security framework > which uses HAC and TLS in its scope. Raj, thank you for clarifications. I have indeed missed that draft. I wonder whether it requires some modification to some RFC3775 Mobile IPv6 message? I am asking because I doubt so, hence my doubt about MEXT doing only Mobile IPv6 work. Anyways, what is a Mobile IPv6 draft? - mention Mobile IPv6 label? - extend a Mobile IPv6 message? - encapsulate unmodified BU into other headers? - able to run unmodified Mobile IPv6 in the same box running other protocol? By some definition some agenda items apply others don't, I think. Alex > > -Raj > >