Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-bagnulo-cga-ext-01.txt

We have submitted a new version of the CGA extension format taking into 
account the comments made in the list.
Here is the new version,

additional comments are welcome

regards, marcelo

Inicio mensaje reenviado:

> De: Internet-Drafts <at> ietf.org
> Fecha: 8 de marzo de 2006 22:50:01 GMT+02:00
> Para: i-d-announce <at> ietf.org
> Cc: Asunto: I-D ACTION:draft-bagnulo-cga-ext-01.txt
> Responder a: internet-drafts <at> ietf.org
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
> directories.
>
>
> 	Title		: Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA) Extension Field 
> Format
> 	Author(s)	: M. Bagnulo, J. Arkko
> 	Filename	: draft-bagnulo-cga-ext-01.txt
> 	Pages		: 6
> 	Date		: 2006-3-8
> 	
> This document defines a Type-Length-Value format for
>    Cryptographically Generated Address (CGA) Extensions.
>

agenda for intarea meeting in Dallas, take one

Here's our agenda for the intarea meeting in Dallas.
Comments, suggestions, and corrections to myself,
Margaret, or Mark.

----

Internet Area Open Meeting (intarea)
MONDAY, March 20, 2006
Room Coronado BCD
1520-1720 Afternoon Session II
(at the same time as lemonade, speermint, capwap, pce, rmt, tcpm, btns)

1. Administrative
   - Notes takers
   - Agenda bash

2. Internet area status update (ADs)
   - New AD
   - WG news
   - BOFs at IETF-65
   - Declined BOFs
   - Document status for "area documents"
     . draft-bonica-internet-icmp-01.txt
     . draft-fenner-iana-exp-2780-02.txt
     . draft-bagnulo-cga-ext-01.txt

3. Update on using experimental values - IANA rules on
   IPv4, IPv6, ICMP, UDP, TCP (TBD)
   - draft-fenner-iana-exp-2780-02.txt

draft-bonica-internet-icmp-02

Folks,

An updated version of draft-bonica-internet-icmp is attached. I
apologize for not getting it out sooner.

I believe that this version addresses the issues that Joe raised on the
mailing list earlier.

                                 Ron

Internet                                                       R. Bonica
Internet-Draft                                                    D. Gan
Expires: September 17, 2006                             Juniper Networks
                                                             P. Nikander
                                           Ericsson Research Nomadic Lab
                                                               D. Tappan
                                                            C. Pignataro
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                          March 16, 2006

 Redefining Selected ICMP Messages To Include a Length Attribute and an
                          Extension Structure
                     draft-bonica-internet-icmp-02

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware

Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-laganier-ipv6-khi-01.txt

[ Cross-posted to HIP WG and IPv6 WG.  ]
[ Please reply _only_ to the INT area. ]

Folks,

draft-laganier-ipv6-khi-01.txt has been updated based on feedback 
received from IETFers. 

The HIP base specification currently has a hard dependency on this 
draft and therefore it would be desirable to have it published as an 
RFC as soon as possible, since the HIP base specification is now 
quite mature. This draft intent is to make it possible for existing 
applications running on a HIP node to use both HIP and IPv6 at the 
same time, in the hope that it will foster the HIP experiment.

Your opinions on moving forward with this draft are more than 
welcomed.

Best regards,

--julien

----------  Forwarded Message  ----------

Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-laganier-ipv6-khi-01.txt
Date: Friday 03 March 2006 21:50
From: Internet-Drafts <at> ietf.org
To: i-d-announce <at> ietf.org

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts

Discussion of draft-fenner-zinin-rtg-standard-reqts in the int-area meeting

We will have some time to discuss this document during the int-area meeting on 
Monday:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-fenner-zinin-rtg-standard-reqts-01.txt

This document is also known as "RFC1264bis" as one of its goals is to update the 
criteria described in RFC1264.

Niether of these documents claim that their scope is limited just to the routing 
area, but to routing protocols in general. Thus, a number of our working groups 
(particularly l2vpn, l3vpn, trill, softwires, pwe3) should take particular 
interest in this discussion.

The document was recently discussed on the routing-discussion <at> ietf.org mailing 
list. The main thread may be found here:

http://rtg.ietf.org/lurker/thread/20060310.213845.1ddb5314.en.html#20060310.213845.1ddb5314

This document is also being discussed in the rtg-area meeting in Dallas.

Thanks,

- Mark

Re: draft-bonica-internet-icmp-02

Ron Bonica wrote:
> Folks,
> 
> An updated version of draft-bonica-internet-icmp is attached. I
> apologize for not getting it out sooner.
> 
> I believe that this version addresses the issues that Joe raised on the
> mailing list earlier.
> 
>                                  Ron

Due to some spectacular scheduling of WG meetings for Dallas, I will not
be able to attend the INT area meeting

There are two drafts for which I had wanted to participate in
discussion, so I'll post my notes here in advance of the meeting. I hope
I am not preempting any of the discussion that might occur in the room,
but this seems more productive than commenting post-facto.  I'll be glad
to discuss this further on the mailing list (except in realtime during
the WG meeting). I may try to be on Jabber, but it's unlikely I will be
able to participate substantively there.

This note addresses draft-bonica-internet-icmp-02 (the recently posted
update).

I had reviewed a previous (00 and 01) versions of this document and
provided feedback to Ron. My general impression:

- this document makes a change to ICMP processing that is NOT backward

agenda for intarea meeting in Dallas, take two

Internet Area Open Meeting (intarea)
MONDAY, March 20, 2006
Room Coronado BCD
1520-1720 Afternoon Session II
(at the same time as lemonade, speermint, capwap, pce, rmt, tcpm, btns)

1. Administrative (5 min)
   - Notes takers
   - Agenda bash

2. Internet area status update (20 min, ADs)
   - New AD
   - WG news
   - BOFs at IETF-65
   - Declined BOFs
   - Document status for "area documents"
     . draft-fenner-iana-exp-2780-02.txt (IESG Eval)
     . draft-bagnulo-cga-ext-01.txt (IESG Eval)
     . draft-bonica-internet-icmp-01.txt (Active)
     . draft-laganier-ipv6-khi-01.txt (Active)

3. Update on using experimental values - IANA rules on
   IPv4, IPv6, ICMP, UDP, TCP (10 min, TBD)
   - draft-fenner-iana-exp-2780-02.txt

4. Taking IPv6 into account in your IETF specification work
   (20 min, Margaret Wasserman)
   - Common errors that people have made
   - How to properly take IPv6 into account

Re: agenda for intarea meeting in Dallas, take two

> 2. Internet area status update (20 min, ADs)
>   - BOFs at IETF-65
>   - Declined BOFs

I don't know who (among Margaret, Mark and Jari) to thank for this, but I 
appreciate very much this level of transparancy, because it's not uncommon 
to decline a BOF and then approve it for a later IETF, and if we're 
interested in a particular piece of new work, we can help the 
declined-BOFsters prepare for "next time"...

I wish all areas did this.

Thanks,

Spencer 

Re: draft-bonica-internet-icmp-02

Hi,

I reviewed -02 on the plane; mostly I agree with Joe's comments (see 
below).  It might be possible to convince me that the deployed base is 
so big (and there aren't going to be upgrades) that the existing 
implementations need to be considered.

I can send more detailed comments later if need be.

My own high level comment is that this doc needs to address ICMPv6 as 
well.  We're defining a generic extension mechanism, and except for 
the 128 byte rules for backward-compat, the mechanism seems to apply 
to both ICMPv4 and ICMPv6.

The FCFS IANA policy also seems a bit too open.

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006, Joe Touch wrote:
> - this document makes a change to ICMP processing that is NOT backward
> compatible with the current standard; as a result, this document must
> end up in the standards track or experimental with substantial warnings
> (I'm not sure if that hum will come up)

Agreed.

> 4.3 - this is the largest current problem area. it's bad enough to
> extend ICMP in a non- standards-backward-compatible way, but it is NOT
> appropriate to **limit** this design to accommodate backward
> compatibility with non-standards-compliant mods. This REALLY makes the
> case that MPLS versions should have their own message protocol, or at
> least have their own ICMP message types.

Re: draft-bonica-internet-icmp-02

Pekka and Joe,

[FWIW, I can't be at the INT area meeting, either.]

 From my very humble point of view, the draft tries to strike a  
balance between what should be done, or how to do it right, and how  
to handle the ugly situation out there.  Unless I have been lied to  
or completely misunderstood what I have heard, there *is* a  
substantial and growing installed base out there.  The presented  
solution is not nice, but is is often the case that compromises are  
not nice.  In theory, there are alternatives.  For example, one  
possibility would be to define new ICMP types for MPLS, as Joe  
suggest.  IIRC, I suggested the same when Ron initially contacted me  
about this issue.  The problem there in the IPv4 space would be that  
few people would have enough of incentive to upgrade their boxes or  
code.

In other words, in the IPv4 space where we are strongly constrained  
by the reality out there, I *think* it would be better to accept the  
reality and try to play nicely with it.

In the IPv6 space, the situation is considerably different.   
Basically, we have a clean slate.  Hence, I would appreciate people  
working a nice, beautiful, easily extensible solution for ICMPv6.   
So, if you Pekka for example are genuinely interested in doing this  
for IPv6, I would suggest teaming up with the current authors and  
write another draft.

I don't think it is a good idea to try to accommodate both IPv4 and  
IPv6 in a single document, basically because I believe that the IPv6