Hi Hui, Are all 4 motivations below part of 3gpp discussion?
Alper > -----Original Message----- > From: ipsec-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipsec-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Hui Deng > Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 3:28 PM > To: Yoav Nir > Cc: ipsec@ietf.org; Alper Yegin > Subject: Re: [IPsec] Proposed work item: Childless IKE SA > > During the last 3GPP SA3 meeting, such requirement about HNB has also > been approved as well. > > thanks > > -Hui > > 2009/12/1 Yoav Nir <y...@checkpoint.com>: > > There were several motivations listed for childless IKE SAs. > > - remote access, where you create an IKE SA when the user wants to > connect, and only create child SAs in response to traffic > > - authentication only over a physically secure network (not > necessarily EAP, but I think this is the use case you referred to) > > - Location awareness (as in the SecureBeacon draft) > > - Some "weird" uses such as liveness checks without IPsec, NAT > detection, etc. > > > > > > On Dec 1, 2009, at 2:29 PM, Alper Yegin wrote: > > > >> One of the (or main?) motivations of this proposal is to turn IKEv2 > into > >> "EAP-based network access authentication protocol". RFC 5191 is > designed > >> for that purpose, and I'm not sure if we need to twist a protocol > for the > >> same purpose. > >> > >> > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: ipsec-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipsec-boun...@ietf.org] On > Behalf > >>> Of Yaron Sheffer > >>> Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2009 7:21 PM > >>> To: ipsec@ietf.org > >>> Subject: [IPsec] Proposed work item: Childless IKE SA > >>> > >>> This draft proposes an IKEv2 extension to allow the setup of an IKE > SA > >>> with no Child SA, a situation which is currently disallowed by the > >>> protocol. > >>> > >>> Proposed starting point: http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-nir- > ipsecme- > >>> childless-01.txt. > >>> > >>> Please reply to the list: > >>> > >>> - If this proposal is accepted as a WG work item, are you > committing to > >>> review multiple versions of the draft? > >>> - Are you willing to contribute text to the draft? > >>> - Would you like to co-author it? > >>> > >>> Please also reply to the list if: > >>> > >>> - You believe this is NOT a reasonable activity for the WG to spend > >>> time on. > >>> > >>> If this is the case, please explain your position. Do not explore > the > >>> fine technical details (which will change anyway, once the WG gets > hold > >>> of the draft); instead explain why this is uninteresting for the WG > or > >>> for the industry at large. Also, please mark the title clearly > (e.g. > >>> "DES40-export in IPsec - NO!"). > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> IPsec mailing list > >>> IPsec@ietf.org > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> IPsec mailing list > >> IPsec@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec > >> > >> Scanned by Check Point Total Security Gateway. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > IPsec mailing list > > IPsec@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec > > > _______________________________________________ > IPsec mailing list > IPsec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
