Hello Brian,
Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > Vijay, > > Vijay Devarapalli wrote: > ... > > I think it is wrong it say the Mobile IP WG is wholeheartedly > > discussing this issue. It is more like that this issue has been > > forced upon the Mobile IP WG (like certain other security issues > > it was never meant to solve). > > I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here, but it's the > responsibility of every WG to solve all the security issues > associated with its own work; security is not a kind of > icing added afterwards to the cake. If I understand the point, it was that Mobile IP has been asked to solve security problems that, in other instances, would have been more properly solved separately. For instance, even though one might require security for address autoconfiguration, one might still allow DHCP to go to Proposed Standard without requiring the dhc working group to devise a key distribution protocol. It is my belief that for the purposes of initial deployments of Mobile IPv6, we could go forward with the protocol without finishing the key distribution protocol first, and allow the needed security associations to be created in any reasonable way (perhaps by proprietary protocols) until an open standard could be created. > And if a security problem > is discovered late, it still has to be solved, even if that > means starting again. Security isn't optional in the IETF. I don't think anyone would contend otherwise, certainly not me. Regards, Charlie P. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
