To: ext James Kempf <kempf <at> docomolabs-usa.com>; "Chowdhury, Kuntal" <kchowdhury <at> starentnetworks.com>; Alper Yegin <alper.yegin <at> yegin.org>; mip6 <at> ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Mip6] Conclusion of the consensus call related to the bootstrapping I-Ds
Stepping back from the specifics of the documents that we have today in the
WG w.r.t bootstrapping, I believe what the WG is chartered (which needs to
be updated BTW), is to develop a solution or solutions for bootstrapping
MIP6. I think we disccovered fairly early on that one bootstrapping solution
does not fit all environments. We are now even considering adopting Vijay's
draft which specifies bootstrapping in the case of the use of the
authenication protocol. But that's not the point here.
The WG direction is to develop a set of bootstrapping solutions that can be
used in various deployment scenarios. The scenarios that we have specified
in the WG today are based on the use of IKE for bootstrapping for the cases
that we call split and integrated. The issue about whether the DHCP options
should be specified within the integrate
d scenarios document or separately
is simply a matter of how we split the
Consensus was that keeping the DHCP options is preferred because of various
reasons (as has been discussed at length).
My recommendation is that we move forward with the set of existing I-Ds
which include the problem statement, Split scenario, Integrated scenario,
and DHCPv6 options.
W.r.t what 3GPP2 really wants from the integrated scenarios I-D, I believe
they require the IKE based bootstrapping solution for MIP6 and not just the
On 8/22/06 2:41 PM, "ext James Kempf" <kempf <at> docomolabs-usa.com> wrote:
> I'm not questioning the need for the document. What I'm asking is whether
> the document, as it stands, is consistent with the direction the WG wants to
> go in, given the consensus decision not to include the DHCP options into it.
> It seems to me that
the direction is for the various pieces of the
> intergrated solution as separate
> Regarding the 3GPP dependency, do they really want the system description
> part or are they really interested in the relay to server options?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Basavaraj Patil" <basavaraj.patil <at> nokia.com>
> To: "ext James Kempf" <kempf <at> docomolabs-usa.com>; "Chowdhury, Kuntal"
> <kchowdhury <at> starentnetworks.com>; "Alper Yegin" <alper.yegin <at> yegin.org>;
> <mip6 <at> ietf.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 12:13 PM
> Subject: Re: [Mip6] Conclusion of the consensus call related to the
> bootstrapping I-Ds
>> Having spent a few months on deliberating how DHCP options required for
>> bootstrapping be specif
ied, lets not go back in time and start discussing
intergrated scenarios I-D is necessary or not.
>> When the design team was formed, the conclusion after the completion of
>> split scenarios I-D was that a solution for the integrated scenario is
>> needed as well and hence the creation of the WG I-D.
>> I have also been told by 3GPP2 (liaison) that they have a dependency on
>> integrated scenarios I-D.
>> Hence I would recommend that we stop this discussion and lets work on
>> completing the bootstrap solutions work.
Mip6 mailing list
Mip6 <at> ietf.orghttps://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6