Re: New multi6 draft: WIMP

[Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>]

Pekka,


>>   - Association establishment
PN> An interesting aspect here is the idea of a "staged"
PN> association establishment.  ...

I like this idea quite a lot.  It reduces the initial cost of creating
and using multiaddressing, while planning for evolution to better
capabilities.


>>   - Endpoint-pair context identification
PN> To me, it looks like that we have to look at this on two or
PN> perhaps three levels.  ...

Right.

(The MAST "fill-in values" for your list of 3 is: 1) Initial - no change
to existing procedures, 2) Control ID -
none/hash/purpose-built-key/etc., 3) Per-packet - no per-packet
identifier.)


>>   - Authentication of the control exchange
PN> Here the minimal requirements seem to be covered by
PN> Erik's draft (I know that some WG members disagree, but ...

This, again, highlights the need for us to be very careful about the
difference between "all relevant issues" versus "issues to be resolve
for an initial service".


>>   - Updates to the pool of locators for the context
>>   - Rendezvous (for mobile targets)
PN> I think that we have to make a distinction between initial
PN> rendezvous, or finding a mobile target before there is any
PN> association, and rendezvous while there is an active
PN> association.

Yes!


PN> And then we have the "third party rendezvous", which I
PN> would like to call referral.

I think the term is fine, and I like to refer the issue to an
independent effort. (Ie, not deal with it for this work...)


>>   - Control exchange transport
>>
>> By way of example, MAST has a very large hand-wave with respect to the
>> details of control exchange authentication. ...

PN> HIP, on the other hand, has very well defined control exchange
PN> authentication, but many people consider it too heavy.

yup...


d/
--
 Dave Crocker <dcrocker-at-brandenburg-dot-com>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>