From nobody Sat Jul 4 11:44:27 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 527461B2A5D for ; Sat, 4 Jul 2015 11:44:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oSZZd9_W7jwi for ; Sat, 4 Jul 2015 11:44:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pd0-x22f.google.com (mail-pd0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6952D1B2A5B for ; Sat, 4 Jul 2015 11:44:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pdcu2 with SMTP id u2so83055338pdc.3 for ; Sat, 04 Jul 2015 11:44:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=QoFyJ/XzESWHK1U82R043IrQgGVBwX/KH2hqtSKibUs=; b=J9qW8BC7N3KQluxl/JuFypBEl8OMq3GKuvUURvEB6mCq7gSC38cCa57ewo+HT4Kuvn EBObzvGdNPOXUcX5i29ifL1tba8MDoPXcaBO5tBx4Lu+0zmnG0FlVL1ENEEHqzcLqtjn 6jdimljkYfN0n+uLSKvNozaWiNNugk7O7S+17LeK0ZOYm469+oo5z7gsC4efAnWQGPh7 qYcCWXX8GLEfyCISpMteSV1onuZZQFa4UlGR8OrquOEnlqc5Z+YEAdfdOTcnId25S2t1 M7shiXmuVuaLD9tzb81fMRuUt3G94Cy6jd+m6Yk9tcxcMZeYN3ejs83Ac5LeEZuabSPC L+Sw== X-Received: by 10.68.89.164 with SMTP id bp4mr87875046pbb.41.1436035464115; Sat, 04 Jul 2015 11:44:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2601:647:4204:228b:a0e0:a08e:28fe:7891? ([2601:647:4204:228b:a0e0:a08e:28fe:7891]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id do3sm12991653pbb.5.2015.07.04.11.44.22 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 04 Jul 2015 11:44:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <55982985.7010703@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2015 11:44:21 -0700 From: Jouni Korhonen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "dmm@ietf.org" , Jouni , =?UTF-8?B?5oiQIOm5jw==?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: [DMM] Draft agenda out.. X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2015 18:44:25 -0000 Folks, The very draft agenda is out, see: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/93/agenda/agenda-93-dmm The slots are mostly in FIFO order. And the agenda is already full and I am tempted to drop stuff out in order to arrange longer slots. Concentarte on topics you actually want feedback, discussion and get the feel of the room.. Just to be more prepared send your material to the chairs by Thursday noon 16th July (PDT). Failing that you might lose your slot.. I want to upload all material during Friday/Saturday since we meet on Monday and folks travel during the weekend. If you want to have some decision made let the chairs also know that in advance.. - Jouni & Dapeng From nobody Mon Jul 6 01:09:53 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69C371A9060 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2015 01:09:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.549 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9H2A1tzpgrWV for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2015 01:09:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SNT004-OMC1S32.hotmail.com (snt004-omc1s32.hotmail.com [65.55.90.43]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 077941A9054 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2015 01:09:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SNT146-DS5 ([65.55.90.7]) by SNT004-OMC1S32.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.5.7601.23008); Mon, 6 Jul 2015 01:09:38 -0700 X-TMN: [b9IoZVuuWDLKB7ZJRlfP3jCE2H96JqES] X-Originating-Email: [fuqiao1@outlook.com] Message-ID: From: Fu Qiao To: Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 16:09:36 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AdC3kqG3tIib8dvLSnObxn+JLbXFRwAMCj1g Content-Language: zh-cn X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jul 2015 08:09:38.0418 (UTC) FILETIME=[1A75D520:01D0B7C3] Archived-At: Cc: 'Hui Deng' Subject: [DMM] =?utf-8?b?6L2s5Y+ROiBDb25maXJtIHN1Ym1pc3Npb24gb2YgSS1EIGRy?= =?utf-8?q?aft-fu-dmm-vcpe-models?= X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2015 08:09:45 -0000 Hi, all. I have just submitted a draft about the VCPE usecase of DMM. = This draft has been discussed on the inter-meeting. And based on the = suggestion, I have modified the work to include more explanation of why = this model fits into the DMM model. Your comments are more than welcome. Thank you. -----=E9=82=AE=E4=BB=B6=E5=8E=9F=E4=BB=B6----- =E5=8F=91=E4=BB=B6=E4=BA=BA: IETF I-D Submission Tool = [mailto:idsubmission@ietf.org]=20 =E5=8F=91=E9=80=81=E6=97=B6=E9=97=B4: 2015=E5=B9=B47=E6=9C=886=E6=97=A5 = 10:23 =E6=94=B6=E4=BB=B6=E4=BA=BA: Qiao Fu; Sri Gundavelli; Hui Deng =E4=B8=BB=E9=A2=98: Confirm submission of I-D draft-fu-dmm-vcpe-models Hi, The IETF datatracker draft submission service has received your draft draft-fu-dmm-vcpe-models-00, and requires a confirmation step in order to be able to complete the posting of the draft. Please follow this link to the page where you can confirm the posting: https://datatracker.ietf.org/submit/status/70480/confirm/4c051fc4d7640cfd= 77ba20d6c3318894/ Best regards, The IETF Secretariat through the draft submission service From nobody Mon Jul 6 01:11:34 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0E261A905A for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2015 01:11:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.35 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.35 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6tF9qcHhfk6Z for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2015 01:11:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SNT004-OMC1S49.hotmail.com (snt004-omc1s49.hotmail.com [65.54.61.86]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1E471A904B for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2015 01:11:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SNT146-DS11 ([65.55.90.8]) by SNT004-OMC1S49.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.5.7601.23008); Mon, 6 Jul 2015 01:11:30 -0700 X-TMN: [D4ZDxA6pGh65jE6U3saO4EtkiGcTylIJ] X-Originating-Email: [fuqiao1@outlook.com] Message-ID: From: Fu Qiao To: Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 16:11:30 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AdC3krE2UALcZ4XfRg+LWC3LMZuFNQAMJE+Q Content-Language: zh-cn X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jul 2015 08:11:30.0649 (UTC) FILETIME=[5D5AEC90:01D0B7C3] Archived-At: Cc: 'Hui Deng' Subject: [DMM] =?utf-8?b?6L2s5Y+ROiBOZXcgVmVyc2lvbiBOb3RpZmljYXRpb24gZm9y?= =?utf-8?q?_draft-fu-dmm-vcpe-models-00=2Etxt?= X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2015 08:11:33 -0000 Hi, all. Sorry for forwarding the wrong email just now... Below is the = right link. I have just submitted a draft about the VCPE usecase of DMM. This draft = has been discussed on the inter-meeting. And based on the suggestion, I = have modified the work to include more explanation of why this model = fits into the DMM model. Your comments are more than welcome. Thank you. -----=E9=82=AE=E4=BB=B6=E5=8E=9F=E4=BB=B6----- =E5=8F=91=E4=BB=B6=E4=BA=BA: internet-drafts@ietf.org = [mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org]=20 =E5=8F=91=E9=80=81=E6=97=B6=E9=97=B4: 2015=E5=B9=B47=E6=9C=886=E6=97=A5 = 10:23 =E6=94=B6=E4=BB=B6=E4=BA=BA: Qiao Fu; Qiao Fu; Sri Gundavelli; Sri = Gundavelli; Hui Deng; Hui Deng =E4=B8=BB=E9=A2=98: New Version Notification for = draft-fu-dmm-vcpe-models-00.txt A new version of I-D, draft-fu-dmm-vcpe-models-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Qiao Fu and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-fu-dmm-vcpe-models Revision: 00 Title: Motivations, usecases and Models of VCPE Document date: 2015-07-05 Group: Individual Submission Pages: 9 URL: = https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-fu-dmm-vcpe-models-00.txt Status: = https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fu-dmm-vcpe-models/ Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fu-dmm-vcpe-models-00 Abstract: This document introduces the concept of Virtual Customer Premises Equipment (VCPE). Such concept was first proposed in Broadband Forum (BBF) as Network Enhanced Residential Gateway (NERG). The VCPE is the Home Agent (HA) of the Mobile Nodes (MN) attached to the physical CPE (pCPE). In this document, we explain the motivation and advantages of VCPE. Three usecases of VCPE is further discussed in the enterprise network, the residential network, and the Internet of Things (IoT) Network. Two models of field deployment of VCPE are discussed afterwards. The models of VCPE decompose the Control Plane (CP) and the Data Plane (DP), which makes it easier for the deployment of the distributed mobility model. = =20 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of = submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. The IETF Secretariat From nobody Mon Jul 6 06:05:03 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 547721A1BC6 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2015 06:05:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h77BIztwDaGh for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2015 06:05:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SNT004-OMC2S13.hotmail.com (snt004-omc2s13.hotmail.com [65.55.90.88]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 37B7C1A21C1 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2015 06:02:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SNT407-EAS36 ([65.55.90.73]) by SNT004-OMC2S13.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.5.7601.23008); Mon, 6 Jul 2015 06:02:15 -0700 X-TMN: [yYNSEI33VUkFnreLNpBGBqCYmpM9eRUH+aE/Q8INarg=] X-Originating-Email: [cmccvic@outlook.com] Message-ID: From: "Vic Liu(CMCC)" To: Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 21:05:14 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Thread-Index: AdC37E6m9ECJWTlvRhWKWWK2cIo7sQ== Content-Language: zh-cn X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jul 2015 13:02:15.0107 (UTC) FILETIME=[FB0FF930:01D0B7EB] Archived-At: Subject: [DMM] Request for comment: New Version Notification for draft-liu-dmm-address-selection-02.txt X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2015 13:05:02 -0000 Dear All Please kindly have a check. Any comment is big welcome.=20 Thank you very much! Vic Liu -----=E9=82=AE=E4=BB=B6=E5=8E=9F=E4=BB=B6----- =E5=8F=91=E4=BB=B6=E4=BA=BA: internet-drafts@ietf.org = [mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org]=20 =E5=8F=91=E9=80=81=E6=97=B6=E9=97=B4: 2015=E5=B9=B47=E6=9C=886=E6=97=A5, = =E6=98=9F=E6=9C=9F=E4=B8=80 17:24 =E6=94=B6=E4=BB=B6=E4=BA=BA: Dapeng Liu; Vic Liu; Xinpeng Wei; Hui Deng; = Deng Lingli; Juan Liu; Xinpeng Wei; Dapeng Liu; Juan Liu; vic =E4=B8=BB=E9=A2=98: New Version Notification for = draft-liu-dmm-address-selection-02.txt A new version of I-D, draft-liu-dmm-address-selection-02.txt has been successfully submitted by Hui Deng and posted to the IETF = repository. Name: draft-liu-dmm-address-selection Revision: 02 Title: Address Selection for DMM Document date: 2015-07-06 Group: Individual Submission Pages: 7 URL: = https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-liu-dmm-address-selection-02.t= xt Status: = https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-liu-dmm-address-selection/ Htmlized: = https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-liu-dmm-address-selection-02 Diff: = https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-liu-dmm-address-selection-02 Abstract: In DMM scenario, it is possible for the MN to use multiple mobility anchor points and corresponding prefixes. In that case, MN needs to know the property of the addresses then it can select the optimized one for application to use. This document defines new IP network prefix types to assist address selection for applications. = =20 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of = submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at = tools.ietf.org. The IETF Secretariat From nobody Mon Jul 6 07:34:21 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25B6F1AD49B for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2015 06:34:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.087 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.087 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RELAY_IS_221=2.222, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s6cVOS9L3bT9 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2015 06:34:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cmccmta3.chinamobile.com (cmccmta3.chinamobile.com [221.176.66.81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16ED51AD255 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2015 06:34:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from spf.mail.chinamobile.com (unknown[172.16.121.11]) by rmmx-syy-dmz-app11-12011 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2eeb559a83cd527-cb090; Mon, 06 Jul 2015 21:34:09 +0800 (CST) X-RM-TRANSID: 2eeb559a83cd527-cb090 X-RM-SPAM-FLAG: 00000000 Received: from [192.168.8.134] (unknown[111.201.231.214]) by rmsmtp-syy-appsvr06-12006 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2ee6559a83d00f7-812e0; Mon, 06 Jul 2015 21:34:09 +0800 (CST) X-RM-TRANSID: 2ee6559a83d00f7-812e0 From: =?utf-8?B?IuWImOW/l+aBkijnp7vliqgpIg==?= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-4C0021E1-7D02-468F-B65F-346EBAA0C119 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Message-Id: <9F859D3D-08A2-4845-8AB1-96D9FEB8482F@chinamobile.com> Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 21:34:07 +0800 References: <20150706130550.21051.79191.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: "dmm@ietf.org" X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (12F70) Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 06 Jul 2015 07:34:19 -0700 Subject: [DMM] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-liu-dmm-deployment-scenario-04.txt X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2015 13:34:14 -0000 --Apple-Mail-4C0021E1-7D02-468F-B65F-346EBAA0C119 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable dear all another draft has been posted.=20 any comment is big welcome! ALL THE BEST! VicLiu =E4=BB=A5=E4=B8=8B=E6=98=AF=E8=BD=AC=E5=8F=91=E7=9A=84=E9=82=AE=E4=BB=B6=EF=BC= =9A > =E5=8F=91=E4=BB=B6=E4=BA=BA: internet-drafts@ietf.org > =E6=97=A5=E6=9C=9F: 2015=E5=B9=B47=E6=9C=886=E6=97=A5 GMT+821:05:50 > =E6=94=B6=E4=BB=B6=E4=BA=BA: "Anthony Chan" , "H Anthon= y Chan" , "Vic Liu" , "Hui D= eng" , "Dapeng Liu" , "Dapeng L= iu" , "Deng Lingli" , "vic" > =E4=B8=BB=E9=A2=98: New Version Notification for draft-liu-dmm-deployment-= scenario-04.txt >=20 >=20 > A new version of I-D, draft-liu-dmm-deployment-scenario-04.txt > has been successfully submitted by Vic Liu and posted to the > IETF repository. >=20 > Name: draft-liu-dmm-deployment-scenario > Revision: 04 > Title: Distributed mobility management deployment scenario and arch= itecture > Document date: 2015-07-06 > Group: Individual Submission > Pages: 12 > URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-liu-dmm-deploym= ent-scenario-04.txt > Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-liu-dmm-deployment-= scenario/ > Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-liu-dmm-deployment-scena= rio-04 > Diff: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-liu-dmm-deployme= nt-scenario-04 >=20 > Abstract: > This document discusses the deployment scenario of distributed > mobility management. The purpose of this document is to trigger the > discussion in the group to understnad the DMM deployment scenario > and consideration from the operator's perspective. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submissi= on > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >=20 > The IETF Secretariat >=20 >=20 --Apple-Mail-4C0021E1-7D02-468F-B65F-346EBAA0C119 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
dear all
another draft has b= een posted. 
any comment is big welcome!

ALL THE BEST!=
VicLiu


=E4=BB=A5=E4=B8=8B=E6=98=AF=E8= =BD=AC=E5=8F=91=E7=9A=84=E9=82=AE=E4=BB=B6=EF=BC=9A

=E5=8F=91=E4=BB=B6=E4=BA=BA: internet-drafts@ietf.org
=E6=97=A5=E6=9C=9F= : 2015=E5=B9=B47=E6=9C=886=E6=97=A5 GMT+821:05:50
=E6=94=B6=E4=BB=B6= =E4=BA=BA: "Anthony Chan" <h.a.c= han@ieee.org>, "H Anthony Chan" <h.a.chan@ieee.org>,  "Vic Liu" <liuzhiheng@chinamobile.com>, "Hui Deng" <denglingli@chinamobile.com>= , "Dapeng Liu" <max@dotalks.com>= ;, "Dapeng Liu" <max@dotalks.com&g= t;, "Deng Lingli" <dengling= li@chinamobile.com>, "vic" <liuzhiheng@chinamobile.com>
=E4=B8=BB=E9=A2=98: = New Version Notification for draft-liu-dmm-deployment-scenario-04.txt

A new version of I-D, draft-liu-dmm-deployment-scenario-04.txt
<= span>has been successfully submitted by Vic Liu and posted to the
= IETF repository.

Name:     &= nbsp;  draft-liu-dmm-deployment-scenario
Revision: &nbs= p;  04
Title:        Distributed mo= bility management deployment scenario and architecture
Docum= ent date:    2015-07-06
Group:      = ;  Individual Submission
Pages:       &n= bsp;12
URL:         =    https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-l= iu-dmm-deployment-scenario-04.txt
Status:   &n= bsp;     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft= -liu-dmm-deployment-scenario/
Htmlized:   &nbs= p;   https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-liu-dmm-deployment-sc= enario-04
Diff:       &nbs= p;   https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-liu-d= mm-deployment-scenario-04

Abstract:
  This document discusses the deployment scenario of= distributed
  mobility management. The purpose o= f this document is to trigger the
  discussion in= the group to understnad the DMM deployment scenario
 =  and consideration from the operator's perspective.




Please note= that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
= until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

The IE= TF Secretariat


= --Apple-Mail-4C0021E1-7D02-468F-B65F-346EBAA0C119-- From nobody Mon Jul 6 12:25:52 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D088B1B3036 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2015 12:25:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PvU5DK0cDJOD for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2015 12:25:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yk0-x232.google.com (mail-yk0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D1331AD2F2 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2015 12:25:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ykdr198 with SMTP id r198so157507571ykd.3 for ; Mon, 06 Jul 2015 12:25:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=kWzmM+cM24VJrYWcrFSxSud9gTAaMhra3R9XzF/dRB8=; b=hrBbC8k7bVdnRAChFZWppJdq+wux83CNls9UcnpwgPjXckCIQzJ0aEq2csmrONMDOc GTsopTCCgfx6bHYpaVhVccv7k6jADOsEM4cKm2pRi1NVUjnjwZOkLBxo07DcSNnt/0cq laiVPB2RFQssSEGRSxsH7NimIaRxYqvlex9lvV2ObtGRk+p2boHvodO5oFkS0C52pTc6 WsNTmHz8+AuqVMjtYr/u4Ea46lhEI4WheF14Cv696Jd7YhAwdbzVQguWI5mSjbs4KNT8 SvlQAyIXf2TEDRN+XaW4eBh97d+eZKshegVBW1Vt+SY5n6YOPCMh/oVnzrm17UdMkPeu /4pg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.13.231.133 with SMTP id q127mr550628ywe.66.1436210748591; Mon, 06 Jul 2015 12:25:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.13.203.1 with HTTP; Mon, 6 Jul 2015 12:25:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 12:25:48 -0700 Message-ID: From: jouni korhonen To: "dmm@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c0763a67e15b2051a39df56 Archived-At: Subject: [DMM] New version of draft-korhonen-dmm-prefix-properties X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2015 19:25:51 -0000 --94eb2c0763a67e15b2051a39df56 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Folks, Now that the real protocol work has started we had resurrected one of the older drafts on prefix coloring and network-mobile node communication solutions. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-korhonen-dmm-prefix-properties-04 - Jouni Abstract This specification defines an extension to the IPv6 stateless address autoconfiguration procedure. New options with meta data are defined that describe the properties and other prefix class meta data associated with the prefix. The stateless address autoconfiguration procedure and end hosts can make use of the additional properties and class information when selecting source address prefixes for a particular uses and use cases. This specification updates RFC4862 . --94eb2c0763a67e15b2051a39df56 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Folks,

Now that the real protocol w= ork has started we had resurrected one of the older drafts on prefix colori= ng and network-mobile node communication solutions.

https://too= ls.ietf.org/html/draft-korhonen-dmm-prefix-properties-04

-= Jouni

Abstract

   This specification defines an extension to the IPv6 stateless address
   autoconfiguration procedure.  New options with meta data are defined
   that describe the properties and other prefix class meta data
   associated with the prefix.  The stateless address autoconfiguration
   procedure and end hosts can make use of the additional properties and
   class information when selecting source address prefixes for a
   particular uses and use cases.  This specification updates RFC4862.

--94eb2c0763a67e15b2051a39df56-- From nobody Mon Jul 6 13:03:07 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 227F41ACDCE for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2015 13:03:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.211 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H-IxqPckoZSs for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2015 13:03:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D91F1ACE35 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2015 13:03:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BUT86617; Mon, 06 Jul 2015 20:02:58 +0000 (GMT) Received: from DFWEML706-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.225) by lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Mon, 6 Jul 2015 21:02:57 +0100 Received: from DFWEML703-CHM.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.130]) by dfweml706-chm ([10.193.5.225]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Mon, 6 Jul 2015 13:02:48 -0700 From: John Kaippallimalil To: "dmm@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-mccann-dmm-prefixcost-01.txt Thread-Index: AQHQuCVK0FtYFEoJK0KR2RkYUcHj/53O2lbA Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 20:02:48 +0000 Message-ID: <6561EABF52675C45BCDACA1B4D7AA1171DAEF3A8@dfweml703-chm> References: <20150706195217.3849.85150.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20150706195217.3849.85150.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.192.11.240] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: Subject: Re: [DMM] New Version Notification for draft-mccann-dmm-prefixcost-01.txt X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2015 20:03:05 -0000 SGkgRm9sa3MsDQpXZSBoYXZlIGEgbmV3IHZlcnNpb24gb2YgZHJhZnQtbWNjYW5uLWRtbS1wcmVm aXhjb3N0IGF2YWlsYWJsZSAtIGNoYW5nZXMgaW5jbHVkZSBhIHJlZmVyZW5jZSB0byBkcmFmdC1r b3Job25lbi1kbW0tcHJlZml4LXByb3BlcnRpZXMgKGFuZCBub3QgNm1hbikNCmh0dHA6Ly9kYXRh dHJhY2tlci5pZXRmLm9yZy9kb2MvZHJhZnQtbWNjYW5uLWRtbS1wcmVmaXhjb3N0LyANCg0KV291 bGQgbGlrZSB0byBnZXQgc29tZSBmZWVkYmFjayAvY29tbWVudHMgb24gdGhlIHByb3Bvc2FsLg0K DQotIEpvaG4NCg0KQWJzdHJhY3Q6DQogICBJbiBhIG5ldHdvcmsgaW1wbGVtZW50aW5nIERpc3Ry aWJ1dGVkIE1vYmlsaXR5IE1hbmFnZW1lbnQsIGl0IGhhcw0KICAgYmVlbiBhZ3JlZWQgdGhhdCBN b2JpbGUgTm9kZXMgKE1Ocykgc2hvdWxkIGV4aGliaXQgYWdpbGl0eSBpbiB0aGVpcg0KICAgdXNl IG9mIElQIGFkZHJlc3Nlcy4gIEZvciBleGFtcGxlLCBhbiBNTiBtaWdodCB1c2UgYW4gb2xkIGFk ZHJlc3MgZm9yDQogICBvbmdvaW5nIHNvY2tldCBjb25uZWN0aW9ucyBidXQgdXNlIGEgbmV3LCBs b2NhbGx5IGFzc2lnbmVkIGFkZHJlc3MNCiAgIGZvciBuZXcgc29ja2V0IGNvbm5lY3Rpb25zLiAg RGV0ZXJtaW5pbmcgd2hlbiB0byBhc3NpZ24gYSBuZXcNCiAgIGFkZHJlc3MsIGFuZCB3aGVuIHRv IHJlbGVhc2Ugb2xkIGFkZHJlc3NlcywgaXMgY3VycmVudGx5IGFuIG9wZW4NCiAgIHByb2JsZW0u ICBNYWtpbmcgYW4gb3B0aW1hbCBkZWNpc2lvbiBhYm91dCBhZGRyZXNzIGFzc2lnbm1lbnQgYW5k DQogICByZWxlYXNlIG11c3QgaW52b2x2ZSBhIHRyYWRlb2ZmIGluIHRoZSBhbW91bnQgb2Ygc2ln bmFsaW5nIHVzZWQgdG8NCiAgIGFsbG9jYXRlIHRoZSBuZXcgYWRkcmVzc2VzLCB0aGUgYW1vdW50 IG9mIHV0aWxpdHkgdGhhdCBhcHBsaWNhdGlvbnMNCiAgIGFyZSBkZXJpdmluZyBmcm9tIHRoZSB1 c2Ugb2YgYSBwcmV2aW91c2x5IGFzc2lnbmVkIGFkZHJlc3MsIGFuZCB0aGUNCiAgIGNvc3Qgb2Yg bWFpbnRhaW5pbmcgYW4gYWRkcmVzcyB0aGF0IHdhcyBhc3NpZ25lZCBhdCBhIHByZXZpb3VzIHBv aW50DQogICBvZiBhdHRhY2htZW50LiAgQXMgdGhlIE1OIG1vdmVzIGZhcnRoZXIgYW5kIGZhcnRo ZXIgZnJvbSB0aGUgaW5pdGlhbA0KICAgcG9pbnQgd2hlcmUgYW4gYWRkcmVzcyB3YXMgYXNzaWdu ZWQsIG1vcmUgYW5kIG1vcmUgcmVzb3VyY2VzIGFyZSB1c2VkDQogICB0byByZWRpcmVjdCBwYWNr ZXRzIGRlc3RpbmVkIGZvciB0aGF0IElQIGFkZHJlc3MgdG8gaXRzIGN1cnJlbnQNCiAgIGxvY2F0 aW9uLiAgVGhlIE1OIGN1cnJlbnRseSBkb2VzIG5vdCBrbm93IHRoZSBhbW91bnQgb2YgcmVzb3Vy Y2VzDQogICB1c2VkIGFzIHRoaXMgZGVwZW5kcyBvbiBtb2JpbGl0eSBwYXRoIGFuZCBpbnRlcm5h bCByb3V0aW5nIHRvcG9sb2d5DQogICBvZiB0aGUgbmV0d29yayhzKSB3aGljaCBhcmUga25vd24g b25seSB0byB0aGUgbmV0d29yayBvcGVyYXRvci4gIFRoaXMNCiAgIGRvY3VtZW50IHByb3ZpZGVz IGEgbWVjaGFuaXNtIHRvIGNvbW11bmljYXRlIHRvIHRoZSBNTiB0aGUgY29zdCBvZg0KICAgbWFp bnRhaW5pbmcgYSBnaXZlbiBwcmVmaXggYXQgdGhlIE1OJ3MgY3VycmVudCBwb2ludCBvZiBhdHRh Y2htZW50IHNvDQogICB0aGF0IHRoZSBNTiBjYW4gbWFrZSBiZXR0ZXIgZGVjaXNpb25zIGFib3V0 IHdoZW4gdG8gcmVsZWFzZSBvbGQNCiAgIGFkZHJlc3NlcyBhbmQgYXNzaWduIG5ldyBvbmVzLg0K DQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KDQo= From nobody Mon Jul 6 14:05:13 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FB521B326C; Mon, 6 Jul 2015 14:05:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QtgKWlUW_qh1; Mon, 6 Jul 2015 14:05:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E583D1B3223; Mon, 6 Jul 2015 14:05:07 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.0.4.p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150706210507.31048.92356.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2015 14:05:07 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: dmm@ietf.org Subject: [DMM] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmm-fpc-cpdp-01.txt X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2015 21:05:09 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Distributed Mobility Management Working Group of the IETF. Title : Protocol for Forwarding Policy Configuration (FPC) in DMM Authors : Marco Liebsch Satoru Matsushima Sri Gundavelli Danny Moses Filename : draft-ietf-dmm-fpc-cpdp-01.txt Pages : 32 Date : 2015-07-06 Abstract: The specification as per this document supports the separation of the Control-Plane for mobility- and session management from the actual Data-Plane. The protocol semantics abstract from the actual details for the configuration of Data-Plane nodes and apply between a Client function, which is used by an application of the mobility Control- Plane, and an Agent function, which is associated with the configuration of Data-Plane nodes according to the policies issued by the mobility Control-Plane. The scope of the policies comprises forwarding rules and treatment of packets in terms of encapsulation, IP address re-writing and QoS. Additional protocol semantics are described to support the maintenance of the Data-Plane path. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmm-fpc-cpdp/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmm-fpc-cpdp-01 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dmm-fpc-cpdp-01 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Wed Jul 8 12:14:41 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 924621A8700 for ; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 12:14:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vE-BqhUbPzXa for ; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 12:14:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pd0-x231.google.com (mail-pd0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57F7C1A86F0 for ; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 12:14:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pdrg1 with SMTP id g1so19001340pdr.2 for ; Wed, 08 Jul 2015 12:14:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=GUIqUa9OGVN7uHojQ/HkV+wOWxrn4DA5fEoCyWblzhk=; b=JIJYO4XlSjeYzwxRcaL2M7YdNNEsc3Y2FlvJVcK62J4nvfTyp1mQYxDSkY//Q/8NuV L1jlQkMa3fHGhTXkjpEtvhDwiSbEN1Iys+fDhoYC/yRJMujvGcc2Z62Ct0AIPlTN87aN u8sDtfCs7Gsy02ql5eP34xj7apSzZXgcDTYSuwr4V1ONEsGKi1YUILckYTpXEXuIEKif Vr2f6QvT6wo+Lw0Im2AbDACRQYhXtvWv/1i4IQzyU0L+OtMvRH5PaJw/i4ShoJVzImvl uyYIFyxfvR25Qkvz7lP6HcRE2Ra+vL7530HPNhz1x2uZ0AeNYN91cMKWUdE8hbZ1t45h 6cxQ== X-Received: by 10.70.31.5 with SMTP id w5mr23471874pdh.3.1436382878870; Wed, 08 Jul 2015 12:14:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2601:647:4204:228b:2545:2fbc:fe5f:4df3? ([2601:647:4204:228b:2545:2fbc:fe5f:4df3]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id p1sm3351618pdb.3.2015.07.08.12.14.37 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 08 Jul 2015 12:14:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <559D769D.7080205@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2015 12:14:37 -0700 From: Jouni Korhonen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "dmm@ietf.org" , Dapeng Liu , Jouni Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: [DMM] More on the agenda.. X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2015 19:14:40 -0000 Folks, We have had a flood of requests for presentation slots. Dapeng and I are still working on the agenda to see if we can grant everyone even a bit of time - and that amount of time still being meaningful. We are as usual going to give existing WG items longer slots than new work proposals. As a rule of thumb - if your work has already been *discussed* on the mailing list -> better chances. Jouni & Dapeng From nobody Thu Jul 9 13:49:37 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CC0B1A0171 for ; Thu, 9 Jul 2015 13:49:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JkYEa3F9RKuO for ; Thu, 9 Jul 2015 13:49:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yk0-x232.google.com (mail-yk0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC4611A014E for ; Thu, 9 Jul 2015 13:49:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ykcp133 with SMTP id p133so59801356ykc.1 for ; Thu, 09 Jul 2015 13:49:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=pCBAwLxzO7wqe6FK9VxhOMOOHrL+aeCogLRdw/FAJZk=; b=nImgh0rWPNRW0m4W0+vkBR2NhuDrc6jSZzQ/MOTOq91a3ZBezUkJbrTuYylb86wd3F 8GhvWnZa8Tm0kVP+9FI7LWjlgC80ZkzXDHtAYI3TZ3WEPbajPucB3C5XoHWS6PDYpYad zqtq3NzvAjWV1bbQI9Q7i8GLVE9jlixH5Cj/JgiUREomvQI8e77+LT2AdJzVA9PAtkhy vY6fYNAfO9z7mCY46FrpGd7FlcdrSzg3ubaoStrWmDYPJgucUu32hcMyZeNJFBxQ2VpF g7kF2YwR0gcxzozABeJ9HzU0JJPN1QajavQwQD+h5SSS8t+wRxQ96plJe8NAlDIh5vbx DmmA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.129.136.67 with SMTP id y64mr18624417ywf.33.1436474975234; Thu, 09 Jul 2015 13:49:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.13.203.1 with HTTP; Thu, 9 Jul 2015 13:49:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 13:49:35 -0700 Message-ID: From: jouni korhonen To: "dmm@ietf.org" , Charlie Perkins Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114f0e8aa0af9d051a776441 Archived-At: Subject: [DMM] RFC4283bis progress.. X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2015 20:49:37 -0000 --001a114f0e8aa0af9d051a776441 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Charlie, WG, In last IETF and slightly after that there was discussion about missing MN-IDs in the current -00 version. Have these been or rather will these be addressed? I'd like to move this trivial document forward. - Jouni & Dapeng --001a114f0e8aa0af9d051a776441 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Charlie, WG,

In l= ast IETF and slightly after that there was discussion about missing MN-IDs = in the current -00 version. Have these been or rather will these be address= ed? I'd like to move this trivial document forward.

- Jouni & Dapeng
--001a114f0e8aa0af9d051a776441-- From nobody Thu Jul 9 18:30:48 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A99321A1BA5 for ; Thu, 9 Jul 2015 18:30:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.51 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id elI-rqO33_eF for ; Thu, 9 Jul 2015 18:30:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.142.94]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B39D1A1B9A for ; Thu, 9 Jul 2015 18:30:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3292; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1436491847; x=1437701447; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=hdMPzxtz+Q2olZIPQ7QuWuY6BzXGWBchcZwH/C3uEVA=; b=EabJalXrFQwDMnA0yElXSiE2DLTN4++XowelwyEF7FEVx43bqR/yaHbm DwxLzDP42uQrb8IX4bvYDrBRRbkVaj/T9j4/SFCAS4S6RWZYyyKWVo2ua cvejUcFMfzhQtRcn5dvi6fLQpOahloK7ohKyI5Jxa5HS36iEHnP0BXawR o=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CPAwD2H59V/5BdJa1bgkVNgTQGuyIJh2gCgVY4FAEBAQEBAQGBCoQjAQEBBIEJAgEIBA0DAQIoByERFAkIAgQBEogZAxLJSw2FUQEBAQEBAQEBAgEBAQEBAQEBARmLS4E9gRCCKBiEKwWULQGKGYFmkUWHIiZjgTaBYm+BR4EEAQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,443,1432598400"; d="scan'208,217";a="167147912" Received: from rcdn-core-8.cisco.com ([173.37.93.144]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 10 Jul 2015 01:30:46 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x04.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x04.cisco.com [173.37.183.78]) by rcdn-core-8.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t6A1UjWJ031997 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 10 Jul 2015 01:30:45 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com ([169.254.6.38]) by xhc-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([173.37.183.78]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 9 Jul 2015 20:30:45 -0500 From: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" To: jouni korhonen , "dmm@ietf.org" , Charlie Perkins Thread-Topic: [DMM] RFC4283bis progress.. Thread-Index: AQHQurAKNvKQFNAf0kKGRGJs6592Jg== Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 01:30:44 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.5.2.150604 x-originating-ip: [10.32.246.217] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D1C46E181CA71Dsgundaveciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [DMM] RFC4283bis progress.. X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 01:30:47 -0000 --_000_D1C46E181CA71Dsgundaveciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I can review and provide comments. I think its ready for publication, may = be after a minor edit. From: dmm > on behalf of = jouni korhonen > Date: Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 1:49 PM To: "dmm@ietf.org" >= , Charlie Perkins > Subject: [DMM] RFC4283bis progress.. Charlie, WG, In last IETF and slightly after that there was discussion about missing MN-= IDs in the current -00 version. Have these been or rather will these be add= ressed? I'd like to move this trivial document forward. - Jouni & Dapeng --_000_D1C46E181CA71Dsgundaveciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <9893D98FA738DE4DA7B9EA043764847B@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 I can review and provide comments. I think its ready for publica= tion, may be after a minor edit.



From: dmm <dmm-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of jouni korhonen= <jouni.nospam@gmail.com&g= t;
Date: Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 1:4= 9 PM
To: "dmm@ietf.org" <dmm@ietf.= org>, Charlie Perkins <Charlie.Perkins@huawei.com>
Subject: [DMM] RFC4283bis progress.= .

Charlie, WG,

In last IETF and slightly after that there was discussion about missing MN-= IDs in the current -00 version. Have these been or rather will these be add= ressed? I'd like to move this trivial document forward.

- Jouni & Dapeng
 --_000_D1C46E181CA71Dsgundaveciscocom_-- From nobody Thu Jul 9 19:44:58 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA4F31A8746 for ; Thu, 9 Jul 2015 19:44:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.009 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.009 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LCg6wn_Smf2A for ; Thu, 9 Jul 2015 19:44:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elasmtp-masked.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-masked.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.68]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2D651A8745 for ; Thu, 9 Jul 2015 19:44:55 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=NNNzFUSVduSQ3HYr6EpAas8lINO4+8pF5S9M5BpGMM0Ie340+ctCBDWqrsw37qHy; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [87.254.102.8] (helo=[10.1.111.244]) by elasmtp-masked.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1ZDOJ4-0001PN-MV; Thu, 09 Jul 2015 22:44:54 -0400 Message-ID: <559F31A3.50104@earthlink.net> Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2015 19:44:51 -0700 From: Charlie Perkins User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" , jouni korhonen , "dmm@ietf.org" , Charlie Perkins References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------070905060702010909040908" X-ELNK-Trace: 137d7d78656ed6919973fd6a8f21c4f2d780f4a490ca6956527bd5036cbc8ac79fee1497093497eb01240e9fa465f38f350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 87.254.102.8 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [DMM] RFC4283bis progress.. X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 02:44:57 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------070905060702010909040908 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello folks, The last discussion about the document was related to whether or not Vehicle ID should be included in the draft. No resolution was reached for that discussion. However, the draft may still be considered ready for publication. Other ID formats can certainly be added in the future. Regards, Charlie P. On 7/9/2015 6:30 PM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote: > I can review and provide comments. I think its ready for publication, > may be after a minor edit. > > > > From: dmm > on > behalf of jouni korhonen > > Date: Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 1:49 PM > To: "dmm@ietf.org " >, Charlie Perkins > > Subject: [DMM] RFC4283bis progress.. > > Charlie, WG, > > In last IETF and slightly after that there was discussion about > missing MN-IDs in the current -00 version. Have these been or rather > will these be addressed? I'd like to move this trivial document forward. > > - Jouni & Dapeng > > > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list > dmm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm --------------070905060702010909040908 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hello folks,

The last discussion about the document was related to whether or not Vehicle ID should be included in the draft.  No resolution was reached for that discussion.

However, the draft may still be considered ready for publication.  Other ID formats can certainly be added in the future.

Regards,
Charlie P.


On 7/9/2015 6:30 PM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote:
 I can review and provide comments. I think its ready for publication, may be after a minor edit.



From: dmm <dmm-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 1:49 PM
To: "dmm@ietf.org" <dmm@ietf.org>, Charlie Perkins <Charlie.Perkins@huawei.com>
Subject: [DMM] RFC4283bis progress..

Charlie, WG,

In last IETF and slightly after that there was discussion about missing MN-IDs in the current -00 version. Have these been or rather will these be addressed? I'd like to move this trivial document forward.

- Jouni & Dapeng
 

_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm

--------------070905060702010909040908-- From nobody Mon Jul 13 10:50:33 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35A1B1B2CD8 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 10:50:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g8Tvr3XJwTH2 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 10:50:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.184.178]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 68A511B2CD0 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 10:50:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id t6DHoQfw012987; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 10:50:26 -0700 Received: from XCH-BLV-108.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-blv-108.nw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.25.137]) by phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id t6DHoHXP012476 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=OK); Mon, 13 Jul 2015 10:50:17 -0700 Received: from XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com ([169.254.4.231]) by XCH-BLV-108.nw.nos.boeing.com ([169.254.13.45]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 10:50:17 -0700 From: "Templin, Fred L" To: Charlie Perkins , "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" , jouni korhonen , "dmm@ietf.org" , Charlie Perkins Thread-Topic: [DMM] RFC4283bis progress.. Thread-Index: AQHQurAKNvKQFNAf0kKGRGJs6592Jp3UdMKAgAU+YQA= Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 17:50:16 +0000 Message-ID: <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832EB40D7@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> References: <559F31A3.50104@earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <559F31A3.50104@earthlink.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [130.247.104.6] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832EB40D7XCHBLV504nwnosb_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-TM-AS-MML: disable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [DMM] RFC4283bis progress.. X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 17:50:32 -0000 --_000_2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832EB40D7XCHBLV504nwnosb_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, I would like to suggest one additional identifier before publication: X.509 certificate as per Section 5.2 of Secure DHCPv6: https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-08.txt Thanks - Fred fred.l.templin@boeing.com From: dmm [mailto:dmm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Charlie Perkins Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2015 7:45 PM To: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave); jouni korhonen; dmm@ietf.org; Charlie Perkin= s Subject: Re: [DMM] RFC4283bis progress.. Hello folks, The last discussion about the document was related to whether or not Vehicl= e ID should be included in the draft. No resolution was reached for that d= iscussion. However, the draft may still be considered ready for publication. Other ID= formats can certainly be added in the future. Regards, Charlie P. On 7/9/2015 6:30 PM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote: I can review and provide comments. I think its ready for publication, may = be after a minor edit. From: dmm > on behalf of = jouni korhonen > Date: Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 1:49 PM To: "dmm@ietf.org" >= , Charlie Perkins > Subject: [DMM] RFC4283bis progress.. Charlie, WG, In last IETF and slightly after that there was discussion about missing MN-= IDs in the current -00 version. Have these been or rather will these be add= ressed? I'd like to move this trivial document forward. - Jouni & Dapeng _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm --_000_2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832EB40D7XCHBLV504nwnosb_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi, I would like to suggest one addit= ional identifier before publication:

X.509 certificate as per Section 5.2 = of Secure DHCPv6:

 

https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcp= v6-08.txt

 

Thanks – Fred=

fred.l.templin@boeing.com<= /span>

 

From: dmm [mailto:dmm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Charlie Perkins
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2015 7:45 PM
To: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave); jouni korhonen; dmm@ietf.org; Charlie= Perkins
Subject: Re: [DMM] RFC4283bis progress..

 

Hello folks,

The last discussion about the document was related to whether or not Vehicl= e ID should be included in the draft.  No resolution was reached for t= hat discussion.

However, the draft may still be considered ready for publication.  Oth= er ID formats can certainly be added in the future.

Regards,
Charlie P.

On 7/9/2015 6:30 PM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote= :

 I can review and provide comments. I think its= ready for publication, may be after a minor edit.

 

 

 

From: dmm <dmm-bounces@iet= f.org> on behalf of jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 1:49 PM
To: "dmm@ietf.org" <= ;dmm@ietf.org>, Charlie Perkins <= Charlie.Perkins@huawei.com>
Subject: [DMM] RFC4283bis progress..

 

Charlie, WG,

In last IETF and slightly a= fter that there was discussion about missing MN-IDs in the current -00 vers= ion. Have these been or rather will these be addressed? I'd like to move this trivial document forward.

- Jouni & Dapeng




_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf=
.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm

 

--_000_2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832EB40D7XCHBLV504nwnosb_-- From nobody Mon Jul 13 11:08:30 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 097841B2CFC for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 11:08:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.51 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tZdyLYbQTbFz for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 11:08:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D8BC91B2CF7 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 11:08:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=13011; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1436810901; x=1438020501; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=kLcUZYJpHMLtwcp9RWGJCAGAOij0iK/afDDJvrP19YI=; b=V4ARyoZk3ZS47Kofpg6/9YIi0y94/GIv+gBRgItr+KNyzGMxHFiIR7cQ npNVugn6mAvjXySckKbEg6xZ4Gst+2bMFs3q5I0KVykuakKqWpE5cHHoH CjMf67C9u+ns/plAK0cgBGTrpqKfseYng2j28ZZLqjxbY/hnBXL35PJvM Y=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AgAwBQ/aNV/4oNJK1bgkZNVGkGhSa2FwmBagEJhXcCgTw4FAEBAQEBAQGBCoQjAQEBBAEBASpBGwIBCBEDAQEBKAchBgsUCQgCBAESiBkDEg3FXQ2FQAEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARMEi0yBPYEQgWE0Ew0KAYQrBZQxAYodgWaRSIcjJmN8OoFibwGBBEKBBAEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,464,1432598400"; d="scan'208,217";a="168075530" Received: from alln-core-5.cisco.com ([173.36.13.138]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Jul 2015 18:08:21 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com [173.37.183.79]) by alln-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t6DI8KdZ012004 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 13 Jul 2015 18:08:21 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com ([169.254.6.38]) by xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com ([173.37.183.79]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 13:08:20 -0500 From: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" To: "Templin, Fred L" , Charlie Perkins , jouni korhonen , "dmm@ietf.org" , Charlie Perkins Thread-Topic: [DMM] RFC4283bis progress.. Thread-Index: AQHQvZbmgo6oVxINAkCP9xpU72uzjg== Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 18:08:20 +0000 Message-ID: References: <559F31A3.50104@earthlink.net> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832EB40D7@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> In-Reply-To: <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832EB40D7@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.5.2.150604 x-originating-ip: [10.32.246.214] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D1C94B561CAF71sgundaveciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [DMM] RFC4283bis progress.. X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 18:08:29 -0000 --_000_D1C94B561CAF71sgundaveciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable HI Fred, MIP NAI structure is some what designed for carrying an identifier that can= be represented in a simple structure. It is bound by the 1-octet size limi= t defined in RFC6275. X.509 is a complex structure, it includes the signed = public key, serial number and number of other parameters and based on the k= ey size it can be in Kbytes. Wondering, why a simple DHCP Client Identifier= is not sufficient here. Support for EUI based identifiers is already prese= nt and that allows us to map to DHCP client identifiers ? Regards Sri From: "Templin, Fred L" > Date: Monday, July 13, 2015 at 10:50 AM To: Charlie Perkins >, Sri Gundavelli >, jouni korhonen >= , "dmm@ietf.org" >, = Charlie Perkins > Subject: RE: [DMM] RFC4283bis progress.. Hi, I would like to suggest one additional identifier before publication: X.509 certificate as per Section 5.2 of Secure DHCPv6: https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-08.txt Thanks =96 Fred fred.l.templin@boeing.com From: dmm [mailto:dmm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Charlie Perkins Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2015 7:45 PM To: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave); jouni korhonen; dmm@ietf.org; Charlie Perkins Subject: Re: [DMM] RFC4283bis progress.. Hello folks, The last discussion about the document was related to whether or not Vehicl= e ID should be included in the draft. No resolution was reached for that d= iscussion. However, the draft may still be considered ready for publication. Other ID= formats can certainly be added in the future. Regards, Charlie P. On 7/9/2015 6:30 PM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote: I can review and provide comments. I think its ready for publication, may = be after a minor edit. From: dmm > on behalf of = jouni korhonen > Date: Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 1:49 PM To: "dmm@ietf.org" >= , Charlie Perkins > Subject: [DMM] RFC4283bis progress.. Charlie, WG, In last IETF and slightly after that there was discussion about missing MN-= IDs in the current -00 version. Have these been or rather will these be add= ressed? I'd like to move this trivial document forward. - Jouni & Dapeng _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm --_000_D1C94B561CAF71sgundaveciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: <3A7FDD5FCAAA12499E2B935D4731788E@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
HI Fred,

MIP NAI structure is some what designed for carrying an identifier tha= t can be represented in a simple structure. It is bound by the 1-octet size= limit defined in RFC6275. X.509 is a complex structure, it includes the si= gned public key, serial number and number of other parameters and based on the key size it can be in Kbytes. = Wondering, why a simple DHCP Client Identifier is not sufficient here. Supp= ort for EUI based identifiers is already present and that allows us to map = to DHCP client identifiers ?

Regards
Sri



From: "Templin, Fred L" &= lt;Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
Date: Monday, July 13, 2015 at 10:5= 0 AM
To: Charlie Perkins <charles.perkins@earthlink.net>= , Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@cisco.c= om>, jouni korhonen <jo= uni.nospam@gmail.com>, "dmm@ietf.org" <dmm@ietf.org>, Charlie Perkins <Charlie.Perkins@huawei.com> Subject: RE: [DMM] RFC4283bis progr= ess..

Hi, I would like to suggest one add= itional identifier before publication:

X.509 certificate as per Section 5.= 2 of Secure DHCPv6:

 

https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dhc-sedh= cpv6-08.txt

 

Thanks =96 Fred

fred.l.templin@boeing.com

 

From: dmm [mailto:dmm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Charlie Perkins
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2015 7:45 PM
To: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave); jouni korhonen; dmm@ietf.org; Charlie Perkins
Subject: Re: [DMM] RFC4283bis progress..

 

Hello folks,

The last discussion about the document was related to whether or not Vehicl= e ID should be included in the draft.  No resolution was reached for t= hat discussion.

However, the draft may still be considered ready for publication.  Oth= er ID formats can certainly be added in the future.

Regards,
Charlie P.

On 7/9/2015 6:30 PM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote= :

 I can review and provide comments. I think its= ready for publication, may be after a minor edit.

 

 

 

From: dmm <dmm-bounces@ietf.org= > on behalf of jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 1:49 PM
To: "dmm@ietf.org" <= ;dmm@ietf.org>, Charlie Perkins <= Charlie.Perkins@huawei.com>
Subject: [DMM] RFC4283bis progress..

 

Charlie, WG,

In last IETF and slightly after tha= t there was discussion about missing MN-IDs in the current -00 version. Hav= e these been or rather will these be addressed? I'd like to move this trivial document forward.

- Jouni & Dapeng




_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf=
.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm

 

 --_000_D1C94B561CAF71sgundaveciscocom_-- From nobody Tue Jul 14 07:55:01 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 487CF1ACE70 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 07:54:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YxVj49xy7b_M for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 07:54:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.184.178]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 00BFE1ACE6D for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 07:54:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id t6EEsqY2046679; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 07:54:52 -0700 Received: from XCH-PHX-211.sw.nos.boeing.com (xch-phx-211.sw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.25.140]) by phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id t6EEsn8o046664 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=OK); Tue, 14 Jul 2015 07:54:50 -0700 Received: from XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com ([169.254.4.231]) by XCH-PHX-211.sw.nos.boeing.com ([169.254.11.215]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 07:54:48 -0700 From: "Templin, Fred L" To: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" , Charlie Perkins , jouni korhonen , "dmm@ietf.org" , Charlie Perkins Thread-Topic: [DMM] RFC4283bis progress.. Thread-Index: AQHQurAKNvKQFNAf0kKGRGJs6592Jp3UdMKAgAU+YQCAAHqiAIAA5Dfw Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 14:54:48 +0000 Message-ID: <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832EB4A51@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> References: <559F31A3.50104@earthlink.net> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832EB40D7@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [130.247.104.6] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832EB4A51XCHBLV504nwnosb_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-TM-AS-MML: disable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [DMM] RFC4283bis progress.. X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 14:54:59 -0000 --_000_2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832EB4A51XCHBLV504nwnosb_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Sri, Reason for the X.509 certificate is that, in some environments, an attacker= can spoof a DHCP Client Identifier and receive services that were intended for = the authentic client. With X.509 certificate, the certificate holder has to sig= n its DHCP messages with its private key so the DHCP server can authenticate using the public key and therefore defeat any spoofing. Thanks - Fred fred.l.templin@boeing.com From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:sgundave@cisco.com] Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 11:08 AM To: Templin, Fred L; Charlie Perkins; jouni korhonen; dmm@ietf.org; Charlie= Perkins Subject: Re: [DMM] RFC4283bis progress.. HI Fred, MIP NAI structure is some what designed for carrying an identifier that can= be represented in a simple structure. It is bound by the 1-octet size limi= t defined in RFC6275. X.509 is a complex structure, it includes the signed = public key, serial number and number of other parameters and based on the k= ey size it can be in Kbytes. Wondering, why a simple DHCP Client Identifier= is not sufficient here. Support for EUI based identifiers is already prese= nt and that allows us to map to DHCP client identifiers ? Regards Sri From: "Templin, Fred L" > Date: Monday, July 13, 2015 at 10:50 AM To: Charlie Perkins >, Sri Gundavelli >, jouni korhonen >= , "dmm@ietf.org" >, = Charlie Perkins > Subject: RE: [DMM] RFC4283bis progress.. Hi, I would like to suggest one additional identifier before publication: X.509 certificate as per Section 5.2 of Secure DHCPv6: https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-08.txt Thanks - Fred fred.l.templin@boeing.com From: dmm [mailto:dmm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Charlie Perkins Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2015 7:45 PM To: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave); jouni korhonen; dmm@ietf.org; Charlie Perkins Subject: Re: [DMM] RFC4283bis progress.. Hello folks, The last discussion about the document was related to whether or not Vehicl= e ID should be included in the draft. No resolution was reached for that d= iscussion. However, the draft may still be considered ready for publication. Other ID= formats can certainly be added in the future. Regards, Charlie P. On 7/9/2015 6:30 PM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote: I can review and provide comments. I think its ready for publication, may = be after a minor edit. From: dmm > on behalf of = jouni korhonen > Date: Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 1:49 PM To: "dmm@ietf.org" >= , Charlie Perkins > Subject: [DMM] RFC4283bis progress.. Charlie, WG, In last IETF and slightly after that there was discussion about missing MN-= IDs in the current -00 version. Have these been or rather will these be add= ressed? I'd like to move this trivial document forward. - Jouni & Dapeng _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm --_000_2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832EB4A51XCHBLV504nwnosb_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Sri,

 

Reason for the X.509 certificate is t= hat, in some environments, an attacker can

spoof a DHCP Client Identifier and re= ceive services that were intended for the

authentic client. With X.509 certific= ate, the certificate holder has to sign its DHCP

messages with its private key so the = DHCP server can authenticate using the

public key and therefore defeat any s= poofing.

 

Thanks – Fred=

fred.l.templin@boeing.com<= /span>

 

From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:sgundave@cisco.com]
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 11:08 AM
To: Templin, Fred L; Charlie Perkins; jouni korhonen; dmm@ietf.org; = Charlie Perkins
Subject: Re: [DMM] RFC4283bis progress..

 

HI Fred,

 

MIP NAI structure is some what designed for carryin= g an identifier that can be represented in a simple structure. It is bound = by the 1-octet size limit defined in RFC6275. X.509 is a complex structure, it includes the signed public key, serial nu= mber and number of other parameters and based on the key size it can be in = Kbytes. Wondering, why a simple DHCP Client Identifier is not sufficient he= re. Support for EUI based identifiers is already present and that allows us to map to DHCP client identifiers ?<= o:p>

 

Regards

Sri

 

 

 

From: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
Date: Monday, July 13, 2015 at 10:50 AM
To: Charlie Perkins <charles.perkins@earthlink.net>, Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@cisco.com>, jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>, "dmm@ietf.org" <dmm@ietf.org>, Charlie Perkins <Charlie.Perkins@huawei.com> Subject: RE: [DMM] RFC4283bis progress..

 

Hi, I would like to suggest one addit= ional identifier before publication:

X.509 certificate as per Section 5.2 = of Secure DHCPv6:

 

https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcp= v6-08.txt

 

Thanks – Fred=

fred.l.templin@boeing.com

 

From: dmm [mailto:dmm-bounces@ietf.or= g] On Behalf Of Charlie Perkins
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2015 7:45 PM
To: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave); jouni korhonen; dmm@ietf.org; Charlie Perkins
Subject: Re: [DMM] RFC4283bis progress..

 

Hello folks,

The last discussion about the document was related to whether or not Vehicl= e ID should be included in the draft.  No resolution was reached for t= hat discussion.

However, the draft may still be considered ready for publication.  Oth= er ID formats can certainly be added in the future.

Regards,
Charlie P.


On 7/9/2015 6:30 PM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote= :

 I can review and provide comments. I think its= ready for publication, may be after a minor edit.

 

 

 

From: dmm <dmm-bounces@iet= f.org> on behalf of jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 1:49 PM
To: "dmm@ietf.org" <= ;dmm@ietf.org>, Charlie Perkins <= Charlie.Perkins@huawei.com>
Subject: [DMM] RFC4283bis progress..

 

Charlie, WG,

In last IETF and slightly a= fter that there was discussion about missing MN-IDs in the current -00 vers= ion. Have these been or rather will these be addressed? I'd like to move this trivial document forward.

- Jouni & Dapeng





_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf=
.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm

 

--_000_2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832EB4A51XCHBLV504nwnosb_-- From nobody Tue Jul 14 08:37:35 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F01EE1A1A57 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 08:37:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RALrRtNnis6e for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 08:37:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from uillean.fuaim.com (uillean.fuaim.com [206.197.161.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C66B1A1A0B for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 08:37:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach-high.fuaim.com [206.197.161.158]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uillean.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84D708815E for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 08:37:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brians-mbp.jhuapl.edu (swifi-nat.jhuapl.edu [128.244.87.133]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clairseach.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EEA81369284 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 08:37:05 -0700 (PDT) To: dmm@ietf.org References: <559F31A3.50104@earthlink.net> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832EB40D7@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832EB4A51@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> From: Brian Haberman Message-ID: <55A52C98.4090008@innovationslab.net> Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 11:36:56 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832EB4A51@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="IbEKH0IkEViX8NhsIduptC94OtVXluK85" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [DMM] RFC4283bis progress.. X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 15:37:34 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --IbEKH0IkEViX8NhsIduptC94OtVXluK85 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Fred, On 7/14/15 10:54 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote: > Hi Sri, >=20 > =20 >=20 > Reason for the X.509 certificate is that, in some environments, an > attacker can >=20 > spoof a DHCP Client Identifier and receive services that were intended > for the >=20 > authentic client. With X.509 certificate, the certificate holder has to= > sign its DHCP >=20 > messages with its private key so the DHCP server can authenticate using= the >=20 > public key and therefore defeat any spoofing. >=20 Can you suggest an X.509 format/profile that can be represented in 254 bytes? Regards, Brian --IbEKH0IkEViX8NhsIduptC94OtVXluK85 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVpSygAAoJEBOZRqCi7goqoA8IANOQTGWJhZpnOWOAOKuRci+E s0ICIhvyVG5y8y4NUH6ZjDnkQA4mHXBY5jw9lEtuufhljQkM83hdRdVuT57gSyH2 oEVXUx/N+8jaKb6n3NX7HL4451ekdplg7ivohrPtgCHbDlRULF1XxJJEWXzBVVSY qLcFshrv2FH7MenJB0KsyBd7Ljagsq5X4GHmGLUfrwFR/A3WlzNd9TNVlPHMBaV6 Hm2xhADbl5ATqToBbPIz5hQO3bj0PwUtQrDOL1+UD5fiZIrFKQm7x3FunEDiFmb8 4IQjNhiTqeUdC8Q3xRNxoDOYz+qnPZK4rZVypTvf8f8uVt+wBR7anuNAXANHolA= =kVjw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --IbEKH0IkEViX8NhsIduptC94OtVXluK85-- From nobody Tue Jul 14 09:20:18 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 702831A3B9D for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 09:20:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.211 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s4RpEhaB4RpT for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 09:20:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stl-mbsout-01.boeing.com (stl-mbsout-01.boeing.com [130.76.96.169]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D48A1A1F1D for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 09:19:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by stl-mbsout-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id t6EGJhRm015239; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 11:19:43 -0500 Received: from XCH-BLV-301.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-blv-301.nw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.25.213]) by stl-mbsout-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id t6EGJXm1014822 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=OK); Tue, 14 Jul 2015 11:19:34 -0500 Received: from XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com ([169.254.4.231]) by XCH-BLV-301.nw.nos.boeing.com ([169.254.1.170]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 09:19:32 -0700 From: "Templin, Fred L" To: Brian Haberman , "dmm@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [DMM] RFC4283bis progress.. Thread-Index: AQHQurAKNvKQFNAf0kKGRGJs6592Jp3UdMKAgAU+YQCAAHqiAIAA5DfwgACD0QD//5WGMA== Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 16:19:31 +0000 Message-ID: <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832EB5C2B@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> References: <559F31A3.50104@earthlink.net> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832EB40D7@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832EB4A51@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <55A52C98.4090008@innovationslab.net> In-Reply-To: <55A52C98.4090008@innovationslab.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [130.247.104.6] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-TM-AS-MML: disable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [DMM] RFC4283bis progress.. X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 16:20:16 -0000 Hi Brian, > -----Original Message----- > From: dmm [mailto:dmm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian Haberman > Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 8:37 AM > To: dmm@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [DMM] RFC4283bis progress.. >=20 > Hi Fred, >=20 > On 7/14/15 10:54 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote: > > Hi Sri, > > > > > > > > Reason for the X.509 certificate is that, in some environments, an > > attacker can > > > > spoof a DHCP Client Identifier and receive services that were intended > > for the > > > > authentic client. With X.509 certificate, the certificate holder has to > > sign its DHCP > > > > messages with its private key so the DHCP server can authenticate using= the > > > > public key and therefore defeat any spoofing. > > >=20 > Can you suggest an X.509 format/profile that can be represented in 254 > bytes? Probably not, but I think I have a better understanding of my requirements now. A mobile node can use an X.509 certificate to prove ownership of the DHCP Client Identifier, so it is the Client ID and not the X.509 certificat= e itself that identifies the mobile node. Do I have that right? Thanks - Fred fred.l.templin@boeing.com > Regards, > Brian From nobody Tue Jul 14 11:31:08 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F1471A21AB for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 11:31:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iBs-P9IRsid3 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 11:31:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from uillean.fuaim.com (uillean.fuaim.com [206.197.161.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6785E1A21A9 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 11:31:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach-high.fuaim.com [206.197.161.158]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uillean.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 464CF880ED for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 11:31:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brians-mbp.jhuapl.edu (swifi-nat.jhuapl.edu [128.244.87.133]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clairseach.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5029D136944C for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 11:31:04 -0700 (PDT) To: "dmm@ietf.org" References: <559F31A3.50104@earthlink.net> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832EB40D7@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832EB4A51@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <55A52C98.4090008@innovationslab.net> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832EB5C2B@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> From: Brian Haberman Message-ID: <55A55562.8010607@innovationslab.net> Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 14:30:58 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832EB5C2B@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="oPFIBaB9AFr2Vd0bSBEx4IHuWuJ2xSGHi" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [DMM] RFC4283bis progress.. X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 18:31:07 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --oPFIBaB9AFr2Vd0bSBEx4IHuWuJ2xSGHi Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 7/14/15 12:19 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote: > Hi Brian, >=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: dmm [mailto:dmm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian Haberman >> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 8:37 AM >> To: dmm@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [DMM] RFC4283bis progress.. >> >> Hi Fred, >> >> On 7/14/15 10:54 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote: >>> Hi Sri, >>> >>> >>> >>> Reason for the X.509 certificate is that, in some environments, an >>> attacker can >>> >>> spoof a DHCP Client Identifier and receive services that were intende= d >>> for the >>> >>> authentic client. With X.509 certificate, the certificate holder has = to >>> sign its DHCP >>> >>> messages with its private key so the DHCP server can authenticate usi= ng the >>> >>> public key and therefore defeat any spoofing. >>> >> >> Can you suggest an X.509 format/profile that can be represented in 254= >> bytes? >=20 > Probably not, but I think I have a better understanding of my requireme= nts > now. A mobile node can use an X.509 certificate to prove ownership of t= he > DHCP Client Identifier, so it is the Client ID and not the X.509 certif= icate > itself that identifies the mobile node. Do I have that right? The client ID identifies the node. An X.509 certificate provides the means of mapping identities to public keys and have that information verified by a third-party (CA). So, one could do something like: 1. Client sends client-id to the server 2. Server looks up X.509 cert by the client-id 3. Server sends a challenge to the client based on the public key in the cert 4. Client responds to the challenge by signing the response with the private key 5. The server verifies the response with the public key Brian --oPFIBaB9AFr2Vd0bSBEx4IHuWuJ2xSGHi Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVpVVnAAoJEBOZRqCi7goqb54H/jUYZQNHc7IUyJUb37BIk54w /n0bdPt3DZOUC78CF4Zwi9eJLXOMbrdPdc7ohx6lWgOLbb/ZIRtXIzlvBnChwVlr YF1pOhm/DOgxXcsPpgWkSWqkD+xzPG27LhFHI0wBdADCfK0qX1M1afzZzxkWgR9M 7gqK9SZXlVqYCOGGcv5zfoAoE3254ziyqvCwIKH2vxGjq8B1C+LZiHcP6r7St4Zj sZqtRiLWCbM1NxSFjuNuZZenSPZokoscZCAYwHwUIWvandGYmnF5oAe5E0/onB2e 6BIFAWuhfFlzoeoXQ7sURlM3Gp25DeZW3zvdrTMslVyXBnuCKnSMebAYkztHMhY= =oNA8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --oPFIBaB9AFr2Vd0bSBEx4IHuWuJ2xSGHi-- From nobody Tue Jul 14 11:34:29 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA8741B2A2F for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 11:34:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MOv2lbT613QE for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 11:34:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D46F1B2A0E for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 11:34:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2245; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1436898846; x=1438108446; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=kUAmJmDUm+X4868fLhNJezH4xuM9/9YR/dwCvXZqYOc=; b=IHoeaqOegw/2+CQr8CdJccF+m7dXDZY0fip5yXWTS2REiz+X2cTPNUrE rJmB81/ikNGYjTNQUU4sp5k925v7hkLQ0XdSAmdj08Z5zrjbKXige3z1K I9gN91wSO6gBFtJwXngB+02uZ7hl3Cy2mP9l6QiMmMTAvGNATlaBD7Lic Q=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0A0BQA1VaVV/4oNJK1SCYMTgT0Gu1eHawKBTDoSAQEBAQEBAYEKhCMBAQEEOi0eBAIBCBEEAQEBHgkHMhQJCAIEARKILs9EAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBF4tMgT2CbRFSBoQlAQSUMgGMBZhuJmOBJhAPgVNvgQYlHIEEAQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,473,1432598400"; d="scan'208";a="15366683" Received: from alln-core-5.cisco.com ([173.36.13.138]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Jul 2015 18:34:06 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x06.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x06.cisco.com [173.36.12.80]) by alln-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t6EIY5j4024254 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 14 Jul 2015 18:34:05 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com ([169.254.6.38]) by xhc-aln-x06.cisco.com ([173.36.12.80]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 13:34:05 -0500 From: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" To: Brian Haberman , "dmm@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [DMM] RFC4283bis progress.. Thread-Index: AQHQvmOp2TqjsTlDBUqxfaSFAnUNmw== Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 18:34:04 +0000 Message-ID: References: <559F31A3.50104@earthlink.net> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832EB40D7@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832EB4A51@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <55A52C98.4090008@innovationslab.net> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832EB5C2B@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <55A55562.8010607@innovationslab.net> In-Reply-To: <55A55562.8010607@innovationslab.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.5.2.150604 x-originating-ip: [10.32.246.214] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <34C9414893BE3344BAB066ACBAF19F0A@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [DMM] RFC4283bis progress.. X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 18:34:21 -0000 Brian/Fred, This is exactly what I was thinking. Conveying identity and validating identity are two different things. What is carried in NAI (RFC4283) is just un-authenticated identity. What is needed for validation is a protocol extension such as in RFC4285. Regards Sri On 7/14/15, 11:30 AM, "dmm on behalf of Brian Haberman" wrote: > > >On 7/14/15 12:19 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote: >> Hi Brian, >>=20 >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: dmm [mailto:dmm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian Haberman >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 8:37 AM >>> To: dmm@ietf.org >>> Subject: Re: [DMM] RFC4283bis progress.. >>> >>> Hi Fred, >>> >>> On 7/14/15 10:54 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote: >>>> Hi Sri, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Reason for the X.509 certificate is that, in some environments, an >>>> attacker can >>>> >>>> spoof a DHCP Client Identifier and receive services that were intended >>>> for the >>>> >>>> authentic client. With X.509 certificate, the certificate holder has >>>>to >>>> sign its DHCP >>>> >>>> messages with its private key so the DHCP server can authenticate >>>>using the >>>> >>>> public key and therefore defeat any spoofing. >>>> >>> >>> Can you suggest an X.509 format/profile that can be represented in 254 >>> bytes? >>=20 >> Probably not, but I think I have a better understanding of my >>requirements >> now. A mobile node can use an X.509 certificate to prove ownership of >>the >> DHCP Client Identifier, so it is the Client ID and not the X.509 >>certificate >> itself that identifies the mobile node. Do I have that right? > >The client ID identifies the node. An X.509 certificate provides the >means of mapping identities to public keys and have that information >verified by a third-party (CA). > >So, one could do something like: > >1. Client sends client-id to the server > >2. Server looks up X.509 cert by the client-id > >3. Server sends a challenge to the client based on the public key in the >cert > >4. Client responds to the challenge by signing the response with the >private key > >5. The server verifies the response with the public key > > >Brian > > From nobody Tue Jul 14 12:05:08 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44C321B2A7B for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 12:05:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jarlrCvYhNFe for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 12:05:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pd0-x231.google.com (mail-pd0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA4D31B2A7A for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 12:05:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pdjr16 with SMTP id r16so10472331pdj.3 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 12:05:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Yegirn3MVFVqxRjaoq2YdcTULJ681sZ4yqHJvCewSRQ=; b=TTBQ0eL1nTASm2wpETLZfPDr9X7R/YCHFxzzgTLXg1Y4bC5mE5+HhhQn29aT48kp2R flkMU9hurxn0yiwCH9nSHR2AJ8E8T07S3GehVgM/MexRP4iOJN/kLB7upRSNUolGsQoj SiaU/DS4Yt8vduXM5Vf/aAtjif4Ur/mfiCBwyCtkBOFRYv5j4Ts0N3MeO5QXfyCQxOQu yFTToLTAFp9HiFodW4C12ycPJqnGNjROs/sc5hmMJF2+dJ+wOjJbMmWdqejx6COeiE7C 8FXJtlQ7o/S/eOuMuOzTdnjHBjb9qLtWf2ZBLr4zPaSdk1yraTcoREQ7xuhvp5v1A3UR YQhA== X-Received: by 10.66.159.225 with SMTP id xf1mr292721pab.50.1436900705492; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 12:05:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.100.18.235] (rrcs-24-43-232-186.west.biz.rr.com. [24.43.232.186]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id fl6sm2165569pab.12.2015.07.14.12.05.04 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 14 Jul 2015 12:05:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <55A55D5F.5030705@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 12:05:03 -0700 From: Jouni Korhonen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian Haberman , dmm@ietf.org References: <559F31A3.50104@earthlink.net> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832EB40D7@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832EB4A51@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <55A52C98.4090008@innovationslab.net> In-Reply-To: <55A52C98.4090008@innovationslab.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [DMM] RFC4283bis progress.. X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 19:05:07 -0000 This is doable using "Hash and URL of X.509 certificate" used in IKEv2 certificate payloads. See RFC 7296 Section 3.6. That should fit into 254 bytes assuming the URL is not extra long. - Jouni 7/14/2015, 8:36 AM, Brian Haberman kirjoitti: > Hi Fred, > > On 7/14/15 10:54 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote: >> Hi Sri, >> >> >> >> Reason for the X.509 certificate is that, in some environments, an >> attacker can >> >> spoof a DHCP Client Identifier and receive services that were intended >> for the >> >> authentic client. With X.509 certificate, the certificate holder has to >> sign its DHCP >> >> messages with its private key so the DHCP server can authenticate using the >> >> public key and therefore defeat any spoofing. >> > > Can you suggest an X.509 format/profile that can be represented in 254 > bytes? > > Regards, > Brian > > > > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list > dmm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm > From nobody Tue Jul 14 12:25:50 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9862E1B2B18 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 12:25:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.211 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fm4VuohiYuyJ for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 12:25:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stl-mbsout-01.boeing.com (stl-mbsout-01.boeing.com [130.76.96.169]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A3F81B2B17 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 12:25:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by stl-mbsout-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id t6EJPl2I003559; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 14:25:47 -0500 Received: from XCH-BLV-306.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-blv-306.nw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.25.218]) by stl-mbsout-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id t6EJPdc3002990 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=OK); Tue, 14 Jul 2015 14:25:40 -0500 Received: from XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com ([169.254.4.231]) by XCH-BLV-306.nw.nos.boeing.com ([169.254.6.124]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 12:25:37 -0700 From: "Templin, Fred L" To: Brian Haberman , "dmm@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [DMM] RFC4283bis progress.. Thread-Index: AQHQurAKNvKQFNAf0kKGRGJs6592Jp3UdMKAgAU+YQCAAHqiAIAA5DfwgACD0QD//5WGMIAAmxkA//+Y3NA= Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 19:25:37 +0000 Message-ID: <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832EB5FA9@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> References: <559F31A3.50104@earthlink.net> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832EB40D7@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832EB4A51@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <55A52C98.4090008@innovationslab.net> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832EB5C2B@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <55A55562.8010607@innovationslab.net> In-Reply-To: <55A55562.8010607@innovationslab.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [130.247.104.6] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-TM-AS-MML: disable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [DMM] RFC4283bis progress.. X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 19:25:49 -0000 Hi Brian, > -----Original Message----- > From: dmm [mailto:dmm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian Haberman > Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 11:31 AM > To: dmm@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [DMM] RFC4283bis progress.. >=20 >=20 >=20 > On 7/14/15 12:19 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote: > > Hi Brian, > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: dmm [mailto:dmm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian Haberman > >> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 8:37 AM > >> To: dmm@ietf.org > >> Subject: Re: [DMM] RFC4283bis progress.. > >> > >> Hi Fred, > >> > >> On 7/14/15 10:54 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote: > >>> Hi Sri, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Reason for the X.509 certificate is that, in some environments, an > >>> attacker can > >>> > >>> spoof a DHCP Client Identifier and receive services that were intende= d > >>> for the > >>> > >>> authentic client. With X.509 certificate, the certificate holder has = to > >>> sign its DHCP > >>> > >>> messages with its private key so the DHCP server can authenticate usi= ng the > >>> > >>> public key and therefore defeat any spoofing. > >>> > >> > >> Can you suggest an X.509 format/profile that can be represented in 254 > >> bytes? > > > > Probably not, but I think I have a better understanding of my requireme= nts > > now. A mobile node can use an X.509 certificate to prove ownership of t= he > > DHCP Client Identifier, so it is the Client ID and not the X.509 certif= icate > > itself that identifies the mobile node. Do I have that right? >=20 > The client ID identifies the node. An X.509 certificate provides the > means of mapping identities to public keys and have that information > verified by a third-party (CA). >=20 > So, one could do something like: >=20 > 1. Client sends client-id to the server >=20 > 2. Server looks up X.509 cert by the client-id >=20 > 3. Server sends a challenge to the client based on the public key in the > cert >=20 > 4. Client responds to the challenge by signing the response with the > private key >=20 > 5. The server verifies the response with the public key I think we are basically thinking the same way, but at least in the case I have in mind the client would send both the client ID and the X.509 certificate in the same message while signing the message for the server to verify. So, one round trip instead of two. Or, at least that is how I understood how Secure DHCPv6 works. Thanks - Fred fred.l.templin@boeing.com > Brian >=20 From nobody Tue Jul 14 18:33:24 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B5A51B3051 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 18:33:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.678 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.678 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, FR_IMPORT_CSS=1.889, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jAuC6cSXa4xF for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 18:33:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cnnic.cn (smtp13.cnnic.cn [218.241.118.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 791971B304F for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 18:33:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Foxmail (unknown [218.241.111.47]) by ocmail02.zx.nicx.cn (Coremail) with SMTP id AQAAf0CZoHxUuKVVrfKQBw--.13352S2; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 09:33:14 +0800 (CST) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 09:33:11 +0800 From: "Z.W. Yan" To: "dmm" Message-ID: <201507150933052937129@cnnic.cn> X-mailer: Foxmail 6, 15, 201, 22 [cn] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====003_Dragon038151665680_=====" X-CM-TRANSID: AQAAf0CZoHxUuKVVrfKQBw--.13352S2 X-Coremail-Antispam: 1UD129KBjDUn29KB7ZKAUJUUUUU529EdanIXcx71UUUUU7v73 VFW2AGmfu7bjvjm3AaLaJ3UjIYCTnIWjp_UUU5X7k0a2IF6F1UM7kC6x804xWl14x267AK xVWUJVW8JwAFc2x0x2IEx4CE42xK8VAvwI8IcIk0rVWrJVCq3wAFIxvE14AKwVWUJVWUGw A2ocxC64kIII0Yj41l84x0c7CEw4AK67xGY2AK021l84ACjcxK6xIIjxv20xvE14v26F1j 6w1UM28EF7xvwVC0I7IYx2IY6xkF7I0E14v26r4UJVWxJr1l84ACjcxK6I8E87Iv67AKxV W8Jr0_Cr1UM28EF7xvwVC2z280aVCY1x0267AKxVW8Jr0_Cr1UM2AIxVAIcxkEcVAq07x2 0xvEncxIr21lYx0E2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_JF0_Jw1lYx0Ex4A2jsIE14v26r1j6r4UMcvjeV CFs4IE7xkEbVWUJVW8JwACjcxG0xvY0x0EwIxGrwCY02Avz4vE14v_KwCF04k20xvY0x0E wIxGrwCFx2IqxVCFs4IE7xkEbVWUJVW8JwC20s026c02F40E14v26r106r1rMI8I3I0E74 80Y4vE14v26r106r1rMI8E67AF67kF1VAFwI0_Jrv_JF1lIxkGc2Ij64vIr41lIxAIcVC0 I7IYx2IY67AKxVWUJVWUCwCI42IY6xIIjxv20xvEc7CjxVAFwI0_Jr0_Gr1lIxAIcVCF04 k26cxKx2IYs7xG6rWUJVWrZr1UMIIF0xvEx4A2jsIE14v26r1j6r4UMIIF0xvEx4A2jsIE c7CjxVAFwI0_Jr0_GrUvcSsGvfC2KfnxnUUI43ZEXa7xRGfOw5UUUUU== X-CM-SenderInfo: x1dqqupqqluhdfq/ Archived-At: Cc: Jong-Hyouk Lee , Xl Subject: [DMM] New Version Notification for draft-yan-dmm-hnprenum-02.txt X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 01:33:22 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --=====003_Dragon038151665680_===== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, all, Based on the comments we collected on-line and off-line, we updated the draft of "HNP renumbering in PMIPv6". https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yan-dmm-hnprenum-02 Any comments from you are all welcome. Thanks. Zhiwei Yan --=====003_Dragon038151665680_===== Content-Type: text/html; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi, all,
Based on the comments we collected on-line and off-line, we updated the draft of "HNP renumbering in PMIPv6".
 
Any comments from you are all welcome.
Thanks.
Zhiwei Yan
 
 
--=====003_Dragon038151665680_=====-- From nobody Tue Jul 14 19:13:35 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 984351B30D2 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 19:13:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eMZ4nSIVChzB for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 19:13:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pd0-x22c.google.com (mail-pd0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 030661B30CF for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 19:13:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pdbqm3 with SMTP id qm3so15624044pdb.0 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 19:13:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:message-id:subject:mime-version:content-type; bh=yApHcS+0Z65mEJMN6DYyN4YUnTm0RqV1BrGxTvPEY1c=; b=XX2Cpuo4NDfjfnFSO2AvJRTTp7sKzarad4D+r+Hhw3ZZAt7l396snCJWli7BNrU/x0 vmLr4PlZJllpCej+OgTU/S4IxFND9T/nJcF4YSei0B6Oa7ue2WO2Tk5/x+uoyZ/WJKE7 fTubqOdiKrk86R2/xDbD42/AHDbzR/e6RkcZCkGwG7oKRIm0aS1qerszykrsLKPp41J4 7SrdzqykCrz1+OWI94m96hEJ9XqehjMCRHaBnrO4jWBGUUOYtv3qARdWxVGadkXn4nLk e0fHIov4Z2uFRz206bOKphWd6YtMrWLMVBMs6IA5lGz20F4tl+zmYFU2Oip5jJcOxClu 0PKA== X-Received: by 10.68.181.163 with SMTP id dx3mr3059539pbc.5.1436926412514; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 19:13:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.101.137] ([111.204.220.131]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ap5sm2696147pbd.56.2015.07.14.19.13.29 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 14 Jul 2015 19:13:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 10:06:55 +0800 From: Dapeng Liu To: "=?utf-8?Q?dmm=40ietf.org?=" Message-ID: X-Mailer: sparrow 1.6.4 (build 1176) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="55a5c17c_643c9869_baa" Archived-At: Subject: [DMM] DMM agenda update X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 02:13:34 -0000 --55a5c17c_643c9869_baa Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Hello all, We update the DMM agenda: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/93/agenda/dmm/ Please send slides to chairs as soon as possible if you have presentation on the agenda. Thanks, -- Dapeng & Jouni --55a5c17c_643c9869_baa Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline
Hello all,

We update the DM= M agenda:


Please send slides to chairs as= soon as possible if you have presentation on the agenda.

Thanks,
-- 
=
Dapeng & Jouni
--55a5c17c_643c9869_baa-- From nobody Tue Jul 14 19:29:16 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6504E1B30D9 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 19:29:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8oOWYzVPhS-H for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 19:29:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pa0-x234.google.com (mail-pa0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A6471B30B2 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 19:29:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pacan13 with SMTP id an13so15301978pac.1 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 19:29:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Uvh0OrSdFYthnEoU486K2hHDqKtb2vKcFD/eoEWTBw4=; b=0TQDaAHnRPOzk4fj9KafIEoZpQS6Mg2xqDs0t1KKM0VdN/nBGkXTQCiaUr+r36N4WA TCnY/lcxGU7ExBCjhZa2m4vtxpczdKoJGTToIXZl5yAMpbBlNjXyEO59L7a+Due2e/gC 3Y9SdB3hG5lPK94yYtQ3wL0VZ+KMSqD6Cxp0+TZlE5DVqCgUmqcEkx5HRpa2xJZTJCve +aUaG3lKFe25n1GqvuOVhVe0231yMjbJSS27c9AlHYgkjNbZZIGbKTC6tmnL5M688OcQ /kJoo+r64YHu0WZny5EZfCjBi1bWnD9j/EN7PTv6ZuvwXZ58N6KVklumG7k1Ow9L8wWU ys/Q== X-Received: by 10.70.133.98 with SMTP id pb2mr3228937pdb.2.1436927353843; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 19:29:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.100.18.235] (rrcs-24-43-232-186.west.biz.rr.com. [24.43.232.186]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id dd3sm2709432pad.45.2015.07.14.19.29.12 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 14 Jul 2015 19:29:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <55A5C577.9080704@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 19:29:11 -0700 From: Jouni Korhonen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "dmm@ietf.org" References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [DMM] DMM agenda update X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 02:29:15 -0000 A note & reminder to the WG.. the agenda is packed as you can see and has some bias to main WT topics. There's only 5 mins slack there. Plan your presentations accordingly. If you want answers from the WG for something do not spend time going through stuff that folks can read themselves - concentrate to the open issues. - Jouni 7/14/2015, 7:06 PM, Dapeng Liu kirjoitti: > Hello all, > > We update the DMM agenda: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/93/agenda/dmm/ > > Please send slides to chairs as soon as possible if you have > presentation on the agenda. > > Thanks, > -- > Dapeng & Jouni > > > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list > dmm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm > From nobody Wed Jul 15 14:53:39 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9350C1B34D2 for ; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 14:53:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O6cnx7bjBCYn for ; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 14:53:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pa0-x22f.google.com (mail-pa0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 29FB31B34D1 for ; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 14:53:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pachj5 with SMTP id hj5so30725663pac.3 for ; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 14:53:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=jli+UtNDCLivZMcDcoP1SYVhKgN8m5qs92hkiWkbdDo=; b=T/IoWBIAe6OUVt5cjmiiefPV0eWm6PcTqNSUMs6xvD08v8jShTy/xNhlv8+3wNvUg7 Iu0S5l5M296IsXFY238eGiWkeMHgjyV0YFUCrBDgSX51Pj4QQCCz2V8YrM1PYojm4txL mdjQ/UzyVN2w8y6aSXElaIDGcIuSYWZtZLMatpY7vruzLu2qnyRWqNgfeLY226Z2FDaB 8WrbmiDcNaf/ZY0cQOv2VRbui6ADYnmJ8/KWbmZtPlEeZHX70I3tX+wuRIdfKNXbKmbU 6Fo1AnlIFCQJdR+rwyc/X9n0sIIPxUrqx7aoyNedSL/Uz/hSk8xiRFlSdZVNsJe996XD 6BpQ== X-Received: by 10.66.194.201 with SMTP id hy9mr12293976pac.140.1436997215934; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 14:53:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.100.18.235] (rrcs-24-43-232-186.west.biz.rr.com. [24.43.232.186]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id p9sm5650751pds.92.2015.07.15.14.53.34 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 15 Jul 2015 14:53:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <55A6D65D.5040606@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 14:53:33 -0700 From: Jouni Korhonen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "dmm@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: [DMM] Note takers, jabber scribe, etc X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 21:53:37 -0000 Folks, For a fluent flow during the DMM WG meeting, it would be great to have someone to volunteer as a note taker, a jabber scribe etc. Let the chairs know if you are volunteering (I'll get you a cookie and coffee as a reward for your trouble ;) Otherwise I will have to "volunteer" someone at the begining of the meeting.. - Jouni & Dapeng From nobody Mon Jul 20 16:51:56 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE24E1ACC85 for ; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 16:51:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.209 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.209 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mpQe-pN2QjYS for ; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 16:51:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail1.sandvine.com (Mail1.sandvine.com [64.7.137.134]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 827F31ACC72 for ; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 16:51:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from WTL-EXCHP-2.sandvine.com ([fe80::68ac:f071:19ff:3455]) by wtl-exchp-1.sandvine.com ([fe80::ac6b:cc1e:f2ff:93aa%18]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 19:51:51 -0400 From: Dave Dolson To: "danny.moses@intel.com" Thread-Topic: mobility and link state Thread-Index: AdDCwBdzhVkC8FdiRYipkVsxU2qoGg== Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 23:51:50 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [192.168.251.12] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E8355113905631478EFF04F5AA706E9830C7EF0Awtlexchp2sandvi_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "dmm@ietf.org" Subject: [DMM] mobility and link state X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 23:51:55 -0000 --_000_E8355113905631478EFF04F5AA706E9830C7EF0Awtlexchp2sandvi_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Danny, Although I'm new to this working group, today I watched you present at IETF= on the subject of applications monitoring link state. You asked for feedback on the mailing list... Maybe some of these ideas are= useful: Thinking as an application author, - I think some kind of signal about network loss is useful, rather= than applications using arbitrary timeouts on transaction times. Example: = when should a browser or database client give up on a request? The timeout = approach is unsatisfactory for transactions that take a long time to run. - Having said that, the application should not have to know about = links or layer2 health. - Links should be able to go up and down, without dropping a TCP c= onnection, for example. I feel there is a strong tradition of this behavior= . IP addresses should be able to move between interfaces (e.g., from a phys= ical interface to a tunnel interface) without interruption of the socket. - but one thing that warrants an exception is when the address bou= nd by the socket is no longer available on the host. I believe current beha= vior a socket will stay alive even when the IP address is no longer availab= le on the host, presumably in the hope that the IP address will be assigned= again. - The socket should only fail if the transaction is not going to = finish. In mobility context this might mean that the loss of the IP address= is likely permanent (what is "permanent"? --> need heuristics). - Typical applications will connect with "any" for the source addr= ess to bind to. When a host has multiple IP addresses (multi-homed), there = is a complicated set of rules for choosing one (RFC 6724). Your thoughts on= choosing best routes may fit in this framework. (Is RFC 5014 relevant here= ?) So my proposal, which I think can be backwards compatible: - Add an ioctl or getsockopt so that the application can ask, "wou= ld there be a better choice of local address", giving the application an op= portunity to start another socket at the best opportunity (after the curren= t transaction). - Add a socket option for the idea of "create socket error if loca= l IP has been lost for X seconds". I propose the timeout, allowing an IP ad= dress to be removed from one interface and added to another without socket = error. This is better than an application timeout. Consider the case of a database client using a persistent database connecti= on for queries. To handle the soft hand-over case a smart client would keep checking if the= socket is optimal. If not, finish the current transaction on the existing = socket and open a new socket for new transactions. The new socket presumabl= y uses the newer and better local IP address. -Dave --_000_E8355113905631478EFF04F5AA706E9830C7EF0Awtlexchp2sandvi_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Danny,

Although I’m new to this working group, today = I watched you present at IETF on the subject of applications monitoring lin= k state.

You asked for feedback on the mailing list… Ma= ybe some of these ideas are useful:

 

Thinking as an application author,

-     &= nbsp;    I think some kind of signal about network loss is u= seful, rather than applications using arbitrary timeouts on transaction tim= es. Example: when should a browser or database client give up on a request?= The timeout approach is unsatisfactory for transactions that take a long time to run.

-     &= nbsp;    Having said that, the application should not have t= o know about links or layer2 health.

-     &= nbsp;    Links should be able to go up and down, without dro= pping a TCP connection, for example. I feel there is a strong tradition of = this behavior. IP addresses should be able to move between interfaces (e.g.= , from a physical interface to a tunnel interface) without interruption of the socket.

-     &= nbsp;    but one thing that warrants an exception is when th= e address bound by the socket is no longer available on the host. I believe= current behavior a socket will stay alive even when the IP address is no l= onger available on the host, presumably in the hope that the IP address will be assigned again.

 

-     &= nbsp;     The socket should only fail if the transactio= n is not going to finish. In mobility context this might mean that the loss= of the IP address is likely permanent (what is “permanent”? --= > need heuristics).

-     &= nbsp;    Typical applications will connect with “any&#= 8221; for the source address to bind to. When a host has multiple IP addres= ses (multi-homed), there is a complicated set of rules for choosing one (RF= C 6724). Your thoughts on choosing best routes may fit in this framework. (Is RFC 5014 relevant here?)

 

So my proposal, which I think can be backwards compa= tible:

-     &= nbsp;    Add an ioctl or getsockopt so that the application = can ask, “would there be a better choice of local address”, giv= ing the application an opportunity to start another socket at the best oppo= rtunity (after the current transaction).

-     &= nbsp;    Add a socket option for the idea of “create s= ocket error if local IP has been lost for X seconds”. I propose the t= imeout, allowing an IP address to be removed from one interface and added t= o another without socket error. This is better than an application timeout.

 

Consider the case of a database client using a persi= stent database connection for queries.

To handle the soft hand-over case a smart client wou= ld keep checking if the socket is optimal. If not, finish the current trans= action on the existing socket and open a new socket for new transactions. T= he new socket presumably uses the newer and better local IP address.

 

-Dave

 

 

--_000_E8355113905631478EFF04F5AA706E9830C7EF0Awtlexchp2sandvi_-- From nobody Wed Jul 22 08:00:41 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B90D01A001C for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 08:00:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.879 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.879 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GQ7znv4CKt8F for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 08:00:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtpdb7.aruba.it (smtpdb7.aruba.it [62.149.158.249]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D8341A0019 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 08:00:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dell-tcastaldi ([31.130.224.109]) by smtpcmd03.ad.aruba.it with bizsmtp id vT0a1q00v2NEPrz01T0bzK; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:00:35 +0200 Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:00:36 +0200 (CEST) From: Meetecho Team To: dmm@ietf.org Message-ID: <587584511.3.1437577236052.JavaMail.tcastaldi@dell-tcastaldi> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_2_18434297.1437577236051" Archived-At: Subject: [DMM] Meetecho recordings of DMM WG session X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 15:00:40 -0000 ------=_Part_2_18434297.1437577236051 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear all, the full recording (synchronized video, audio, slides and jabber room) of the DMM WG session at IETF 93 is available at the following URL: http://ietf93.conf.meetecho.com/index.php/Recorded_Sessions#DMM In case of problems with the playout, just drop an e-mail to ietf-support@meetecho.com. For the chair(s): please feel free to put the link to the recording in the minutes, if you think this might be useful. Cheers, the Meetecho Team ------=_Part_2_18434297.1437577236051-- From nobody Wed Jul 22 23:21:25 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 345861A879A for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 23:21:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KIjOcH2AU5_F for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 23:21:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.184.179]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 91B631A19E4 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 23:21:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id t6N6LMSW040481; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 23:21:22 -0700 Received: from XCH-PHX-509.sw.nos.boeing.com (xch-phx-509.sw.nos.boeing.com [10.57.37.31]) by phx-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id t6N6LH6e040391 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 23:21:18 -0700 Received: from XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com ([169.254.4.231]) by XCH-PHX-509.sw.nos.boeing.com ([169.254.9.68]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 23:21:17 -0700 From: "Templin, Fred L" To: "dmm@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Comment on draft-moses-dmm-dhcp-ondemand-mobility Thread-Index: AdDFD8a1CU5KTqy8RZav78kXwG3yag== Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 06:21:16 +0000 Message-ID: <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832EC9096@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [130.247.104.6] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-TM-AS-MML: disable Archived-At: Subject: [DMM] Comment on draft-moses-dmm-dhcp-ondemand-mobility X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 06:21:24 -0000 Hi, Section 3.1 of this document says: "If a client receives an IA Address option from a server with the IPv6 Continuity Service option in the IAaddr-options field, without initially requesting a specific service using this option, it must discard the received IPv6 address." But, this might leave the server with stale state. Perhaps it should say: "...it should send a Decline message to the server and must discard the received IPv6 address." Same comment applies to the similar block of text that appears in Section 3.2. Thanks - Fred fred.l.templin@boeing.com From nobody Wed Jul 22 23:32:45 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8BA61A8788 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 23:32:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.211 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2toObefiQnS2 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 23:32:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stl-mbsout-02.boeing.com (stl-mbsout-02.boeing.com [130.76.96.170]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E80A71A870B for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 23:32:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by stl-mbsout-02.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id t6N6WgMW015751; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 01:32:42 -0500 Received: from XCH-PHX-112.sw.nos.boeing.com (xch-phx-112.sw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.25.134]) by stl-mbsout-02.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id t6N6WbnH015747 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 01:32:38 -0500 Received: from XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com ([169.254.4.231]) by XCH-PHX-112.sw.nos.boeing.com ([169.254.12.129]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 23:32:35 -0700 From: "Templin, Fred L" To: "dmm@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Comment on draft-moses-dmm-dhcp-ondemand-mobility Thread-Index: AdDFD8a1CU5KTqy8RZav78kXwG3yagAAWhrQ Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 06:32:35 +0000 Message-ID: <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832EC90B2@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> References: <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832EC9096@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> In-Reply-To: <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832EC9096@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [130.247.104.6] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-TM-AS-MML: disable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [DMM] Comment on draft-moses-dmm-dhcp-ondemand-mobility X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 06:32:44 -0000 Hi, After closer look at RFC3315, it does not seem that this is the case in whi= ch a Decline message should be sent. So, I am OK with the existing text as it = is. Thanks - Fred fred.l.templin@boeing.com > -----Original Message----- > From: dmm [mailto:dmm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Templin, Fred L > Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 11:21 PM > To: dmm@ietf.org > Subject: [DMM] Comment on draft-moses-dmm-dhcp-ondemand-mobility >=20 > Hi, >=20 > Section 3.1 of this document says: >=20 > "If a client receives an IA Address option from a server with the IPv6 > Continuity Service option in the IAaddr-options field, without > initially requesting a specific service using this option, it must > discard the received IPv6 address." >=20 > But, this might leave the server with stale state. Perhaps it should say: >=20 > "...it should send a Decline message to the server and must discard > the received IPv6 address." >=20 > Same comment applies to the similar block of text that appears in > Section 3.2. >=20 > Thanks - Fred > fred.l.templin@boeing.com >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list > dmm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm