[19:03:49] tony joins the room [19:03:54] tony leaves the room [19:52:28] Alex Petrescu joins the room [20:00:02] behcet.sarikaya joins the room [20:00:32] @alex: salut, ou es tu? [20:00:57] salut Behcet je ne suis pas à Anaheim [20:03:57] Frank is presenting HA init flow binding [20:04:14] per@nordu.net joins the room [20:04:21] per@nordu.net leaves the room [20:05:13] slides at http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/77/slides/mext-1.ppt [20:05:26] Use case 2 slide [20:05:35] Marcelo going to mic [20:05:56] Colman Ho joins the room [20:06:17] Marcelo: assumption is HA is running both access networks [20:06:22] Frank: right [20:06:51] Use case 3 slide [20:08:21] Use case 4 slide [20:10:11] Solution slide [20:10:37] Summary of current status slide [20:12:07] Marcelo: all use cases except Case 1 assume single entity is running everything [20:12:34] Sri: explain Use case 2? [20:13:17] Sri understands the use case [20:13:25] Raj at mic [20:14:34] Sri: use cases appear to be useful [20:15:22] Marcelo: let's take this into rechartering discussion as no one seems to be against [20:15:53] Frank on DHCPv4 option for DSMIPv6 [20:16:18] Procedure introduction slide [20:17:13] Solution slide [20:17:44] Mailing list discussion slide [20:20:14] Alper: there is a solution in RFC [20:20:28] Frank said this is different [20:20:31] Alper agrees [20:21:35] jariarkko joins the room [20:22:34] can someone tell me which presentation we are at, as you move forward in the agenda? [20:23:16] http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/77/slides/mext-0.ppt [20:24:43] tony joins the room [20:25:03] tsavo_work@jabber.org/Meebo joins the room [20:26:02] Behcet Sarikaya: the only thing mentionned in Stockhold was this hiopt draft... they said this is over then. At that time at least there was no concern... The problem with hiopt, they wanted some things to get corrected before RFC number. [20:26:10] (Sotckholm) [20:26:17] (Stockholm) [20:28:35] DHCPv4 HA option is defined in RFC 2132 which is referenced in Frank's draft [20:29:37] Marcelo: we need to understand the use case better [20:30:23] Gabor is next [20:30:58] SOD draft [20:31:40] Overview slide [20:31:50] I dont know where the slides are [20:32:13] Scenarios when HA would .. slide [20:33:05] BU slide [20:33:34] define S flag [20:33:40] Back slide [20:34:05] corresponding S flag [20:34:15] Charlie at mic [20:35:57] Alper: if using IKE and IPSec no need for this [20:36:33] Julien at mic [20:37:19] Raj at mic [20:45:34] Marcelo: we should focus on if this use case is important or not [20:45:46] Kent at mic [20:48:05] Frank finds the requirement useful [20:50:08] Next, Jouni on TLS-based security [20:50:31] slides at http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/77/slides/mext-3.pdf [20:51:21] Background slide [20:51:50] IKEv2/IPSec complicated [20:52:04] TLS based security architecture slide [20:53:13] next slide [20:54:50] Slide 7 implementation experience [20:55:35] slide 8 [20:56:59] slide 9 [20:58:06] Slide 10 [20:58:15] Slide 11 on next steps [20:59:50] Marcelo: we will discuss whether we need another security mechanism in rechartering [21:00:27] JM: about SA mechanism, no reference to home address? [21:02:00] Raj: maybe discuss offline [21:02:52] Julien what is the metric? easy to debug? [21:06:54] Kent: HAC is situated on which entity? AAA, HA, etc? [21:07:16] Jouni: it should be in the same domain as HA [21:07:54] HAC address discovery will be an issue [21:08:15] Jouni agrees [21:08:44] Marcelo: how does this interops with other security mechanisms? [21:11:07] Jari: there are reasons for interop problems [21:14:19] Charlie on Simplifying MIPv6 [21:14:27] slides? [21:15:12] I dont know [21:15:29] Objective slide [21:15:45] There don't seem to be slides of this presentation neither on the "tools" agenda nor on the ietf site of presentation materials. [21:15:53] Too bad... [21:16:58] sureshk joins the room [21:17:20] Jari: I am for removing stuff we dont need [21:18:51] Charlie discussing modularizing the rfc [21:19:18] make it clear RO is optional [21:20:08] right... [21:20:18] doc structure slide [21:20:37] base features slide [21:22:50] Charlie: goal is base spec that will allow interoperability [21:26:30] Hannes is asking why are we discussing this now, were there discussions? [21:26:52] Marcelo said there were discussions on the security mechanism [21:28:42] Jari: there are real reasons why these protocols are not deployed including lack of need [21:30:23] Charlie: minimalist approach slide [21:30:50] My slides from last year [21:30:52] http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/75/slides/mext-0/mext-0.htm [21:32:35] "Ericsson Confidential" :-) [21:36:54] alternatives to security slide [21:37:53] Marcelo : time is up [21:39:15] Colman Ho leaves the room [21:39:31] :-) :-) [21:39:52] Colman Ho joins the room [21:40:57] Marcelo: rechartering discussion [21:41:56] Marcelo is asking whether we should do something else for security? [21:42:19] Julien: why do we need another? [21:45:14] Charlie we need another a minimal one [21:46:17] Raj: IPSec only security makes it difficult in mobile environments [21:48:20] person at mic: we need alternative security because of operational requirements [21:48:40] (that person is Terry Davis of Boeing commercial airplanes, I believe). [21:49:59] Now speaking is Tony Hain I think. [21:49:59] Tony expanding on Terry's point [21:52:50] (I am wondering whether there'll be a discussion of Next steps for the MEXT WG, there doesn't seem to be much time left). [21:53:56] Who at the mike? [21:54:01] @Alex: Marcelo is trying to resolve security issue first [21:55:46] Yuri supports modularization [21:56:36] Zhen from China Mobile [21:56:47] Now Julien on mic [21:58:14] Now Alper is talking [21:58:36] He says we should use RFC 4285 [21:58:54] ryuji@Anaheim joins the room [21:59:27] Raj is answering Julien [22:00:04] please count and tell [22:01:15] Colman Ho leaves the room [22:01:51] ryuji@Anaheim leaves the room [22:01:52] question1: "do people think that mext should be work in additional optional security mechanism", yes? raise hands, no? raise hands [22:01:59] counts please/ [22:02:00] ? [22:02:14] I dont know the counts but yes was a lot I think [22:02:27] good to know thanks. [22:02:45] tsavo_work@jabber.org/Meebo leaves the room [22:02:56] That about next steps for MEXT... security... [22:03:01] ok, seems to be adjourned. [22:03:15] Marcelo said a lot for yes two for no [22:03:27] yes meeting adjourned [22:03:33] thanks Behcet! [22:03:40] behcet.sarikaya leaves the room [22:03:57] Alex Petrescu leaves the room [22:11:45] sureshk leaves the room [22:21:58] ryuji@Anaheim joins the room [22:41:48] jariarkko leaves the room [23:06:39] ryuji@Anaheim leaves the room [23:28:25] tony leaves the room