Hi Hui, You named 3GPP as a consumer of this, acknowledged that 3GPP is not behind all of the requirements, but you didn't respond to my question about which one of the requirements are coming from 3GPP.
I object to this work, because it intends to create yet another network access authentication protocol out of IKEv2. As you know, PANA is designed for that purpose. IETF community needs to understand why PANA does not fit the need, and why we need to turn IKEv2 into a general-purpose network access authentication protocol. (IKE needs to get in line with the other similar proposals, such as hacking up DHCP into access authentication protocol, and even HTTP. I guess everyone has his/her favorite protocol to hack.) Similar questions arise for the other motivations. "Liveness checking", and "NAT detection".... Turning IKEv2 into a dedicated protocol for these purposes is likely to grow IKE in many unintended directions. Alper > -----Original Message----- > From: ipsec-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipsec-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Hui Deng > Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 5:42 PM > To: Yaron Sheffer > Cc: ipsec@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [IPsec] Proposed work item: Childless IKE SA > > would like to co-author, thanks > > -Hui > > 2009/11/30 Yaron Sheffer <yar...@checkpoint.com>: > > 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 _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
