Main Archive Page > Month Archives  > ipsec archives

Re: [IPsec] IPsec maintenance/extensions WG, summary so far

From: <Pasi.Eronen_at_nospam>
Date: Wed May 14 2008 - 10:30:21 GMT
To: <arno@natisbad.org>

Arnaud Ebalard wrote:

> Sorry for joigning the discussion a little bit late. I should have
> posted to make a proposal for some work on MIPv6/IPsec/IKE
> interactions as WG items before.
>
> The IPsec-related elements you cite in your P.S. for MEXT were *not*
> taken as Working Group items during the recent recharter (decision
> of the chairs) even if there were people interested by working on
> it. Some other functionalities have been preferred.
>
> At the moment, even if MIPv6 specification expects interactions
> between IPsec stack and MIPv6 module for IPSec to survive movement,
> no interface is defined. The 2 proposals I am aware of on that
> topic:
>
> - draft-sugimoto-mip6-pfkey-migrate-04
> - draft-qi-mip6-ikev2-interfacing-01
>
> are still now simple external documents.
>
> IMO, the main issue here is that the topic crosses different WG or
> is related to different subjects (IPsec, MIPv6, IKE, PF_KEY). As you
> wrote for the IPsec WG "the intent is *not* to collect all
> IPsec-related work to one WG".
>
> What is happening in practice is that IPsec and MIPv6 will be
> *separately* added new features (probably useful in a sense) but
> will not or badly work together.
>
> Where should associated efforts and discussions be handled?

When I mentioned Mobile IP specific extensions to IPsec, I meant things like RFC 5026.

As I wrote in my email, I think PF_KEY work does not fit within the scope of the possible WG charter (at least not now).

Best regards,
Pasi

---

IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec