Skip to main content

Mobile IPv6 Location Privacy Solutions
RFC 5726

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2017-05-16
16 (System) Changed document authors from "Fan Zhao, Rajeev Koodli" to "Ying Qiu, Fan Zhao, Rajeev Koodli"
2015-10-14
16 (System) Notify list changed from qiuying@i2r.a-star.edu.sg, fanzhao@marvell.com, rkoodli@starentnetworks.com, draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions@ietf.org, Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com to qiuying@i2r.a-star.edu.sg, Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com
2012-08-22
16 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Lisa Dusseault
2010-02-18
16 Cindy Morgan State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Cindy Morgan
2010-02-18
16 Cindy Morgan [Note]: 'RFC 5726' added by Cindy Morgan
2010-02-18
16 (System) RFC published
2009-10-28
16 Jari Arkko State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Jari Arkko
2009-10-09
16 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2009-10-09
16 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2009-10-09
16 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2009-10-08
16 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2009-10-08
16 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2009-10-06
16 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2009-10-06
16 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2009-10-06
16 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2009-10-02
16 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2009-07-24
16 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2009-07-24
16 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2009-07-24
16 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2009-07-24
16 Jari Arkko State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed by Jari Arkko
2009-07-24
16 Jari Arkko Writeup updated per IESG request.
2009-07-08
16 (System) New version available: draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions-16.txt
2009-07-02
16 Cindy Morgan State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan
2009-07-02
16 Lisa Dusseault [Ballot Position Update] Position for Lisa Dusseault has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Lisa Dusseault
2009-07-02
16 Lisa Dusseault [Ballot Position Update] Position for Lisa Dusseault has been changed to Undefined from Discuss by Lisa Dusseault
2009-07-02
16 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] Position for Tim Polk has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Tim Polk
2009-07-02
16 Tim Polk
[Ballot comment]
(Moving to NoObj)

Section 5.1

If I understand correctly, the encrypted home address is generated by the mobile node
and accepted without re-computation …
[Ballot comment]
(Moving to NoObj)

Section 5.1

If I understand correctly, the encrypted home address is generated by the mobile node
and accepted without re-computation by the home agent.  If this is correct, there is no way
to enforce use of a particular encryption algorithm (or even verify it was used...)  In this case,
the text describing AES as the "default" algorithm should be replaced with text recommending
the use of AES, and 8.1 in security considerations should get some text explaining why it
would be bad for the mobile node to select a weak algorithm.

If I am wrong, and the home agent (or any other participant) also computes the encrypted
home address we have a different problem.  To have crypto agility we need a mechanism
to communicate which symmetric algorithm is in use, and I didn't see any evidence of that
in the new messages/payloads.

Also in section 5.1, in the third message: should destination be "home agent" instead of
"home address"?
2009-07-02
16 Tim Polk [Ballot discuss]
2009-06-30
16 Cullen Jennings [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings
2009-06-29
16 Ralph Droms [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ralph Droms
2009-06-18
16 Cindy Morgan Telechat date was changed to 2009-07-02 from 2009-06-18 by Cindy Morgan
2009-06-18
16 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley
2009-06-18
15 (System) New version available: draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions-15.txt
2009-06-18
16 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Adrian Farrel
2009-06-18
16 Tim Polk [Ballot comment]
Also in section 5.1, in the third message: should destination be "home agent" instead of
"home address"?
2009-06-18
16 Tim Polk
[Ballot discuss]
This is probably a trivial discuss, but I would like to see one issue resolved before publication.

Section 5.1

If I understand correctly, …
[Ballot discuss]
This is probably a trivial discuss, but I would like to see one issue resolved before publication.

Section 5.1

If I understand correctly, the encrypted home address is generated by the mobile node
and accepted without re-computation by the home agent.  If this is correct, there is no way
to enforce use of a particular encryption algorithm (or even verify it was used...)  In this case,
the text describing AES as the "default" algorithm should be replaced with text recommending
the use of AES, and 8.1 in security considerations should get some text explaining why it
would be bad for the mobile node to select a weak algorithm.

If I am wrong, and the home agent (or any other participant) also computes the encrypted
home address we have a different problem.  To have crypto agility we need a mechanism
to communicate which symmetric algorithm is in use, and I didn't see any evidence of that
in the new messages/payloads.
2009-06-18
16 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] Position for Tim Polk has been changed to Discuss from Undefined by Tim Polk
2009-06-18
16 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] Position for Tim Polk has been changed to Undefined from No Objection by Tim Polk
2009-06-18
16 Tim Polk [Ballot comment]
Section 5.1

If I understand correctly, the encrypted home address is generated by the mobile node
and accepted without re-computation by the
2009-06-18
16 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk
2009-06-17
14 (System) New version available: draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions-14.txt
2009-06-17
16 Ross Callon [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon
2009-06-17
16 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Robert Sparks
2009-06-17
16 Pasi Eronen
[Ballot comment]
Couple of technical comments that are not relevant for the
RFC 3932 check, but may be useful for the RFC Editor and/or
the …
[Ballot comment]
Couple of technical comments that are not relevant for the
RFC 3932 check, but may be useful for the RFC Editor and/or
the authors:

- It looks like pseudo home addresses won't work as-is when IPsec is
used to protect Mobile IPv6 signalling (it looks like they assume
Mobile IPv6 part modifies the IPsec Security Policy Database
on-the-fly in some unspecified fashion).

- Pseudo home addresses also seems to introduce a rather big change to
Mobile IP: the home agent has to intercept and modify some
reverse-tunneled payload packets between the MN and CN (at least
HoTI). Currently, these are just normal payload traffic (since the
Home Agent is not listed in the "Destination Address" field, it just
forwards them without doing any processing). This seems like an ugly
layer violation: if the MN has a Mobile IPv6 signalling packet it
wants the HA to process somehow, it should put the HA in the
"Destination Address" field instead of relying the HA to perform
deep packet inspection and "intercept" them.

- Despite the claim in Section 11, most of this stuff probably doesn't
work DSMIPv6 because DSMIPv6 cannot use tunnel mode IPsec to protect
binding updates to home agents (when using IPv4 CoA at least).
2009-06-17
16 Pasi Eronen [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen
2009-06-16
16 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica
2009-06-15
16 Lisa Dusseault
[Ballot discuss]
I'd like to understand more about this recommendation.  Did the RG already consider experimental codepoints? Is the RG they receptive to changing them?  …
[Ballot discuss]
I'd like to understand more about this recommendation.  Did the RG already consider experimental codepoints? Is the RG they receptive to changing them?  Are these codepoints really rare?

This DISCUSS is just to talk about the specific recommendation the IESG will make to the RFC Editor.
2009-06-15
16 Lisa Dusseault [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault
2009-06-05
16 Jari Arkko Area acronymn has been changed to int from gen
2009-06-05
16 Jari Arkko Intended Status has been changed to Experimental from None
2009-06-04
16 Jari Arkko Placed on agenda for telechat - 2009-06-18 by Jari Arkko
2009-06-04
16 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2009-06-04
16 Jari Arkko Ballot has been issued by Jari Arkko
2009-06-04
16 Jari Arkko Created "Approve" ballot
2009-06-04
16 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2009-06-04
16 (System) Last call text was added
2009-06-04
16 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2009-06-03
16 Jari Arkko State Changes to IESG Evaluation from AD Evaluation::External Party by Jari Arkko
2009-06-03
16 Jari Arkko After discussion with a few trusted experts, I now have a recommendation.
2009-05-30
16 Jari Arkko
There are reserved field bits and several IANA allocations for IETF-controlled spaces in this draft. Need to make a decision whether the allocations are reasonable …
There are reserved field bits and several IANA allocations for IETF-controlled spaces in this draft. Need to make a decision whether the allocations are reasonable for this RFC.
2009-05-30
16 Jari Arkko State Changes to AD Evaluation::External Party from AD Evaluation by Jari Arkko
2009-05-30
16 Jari Arkko Asking for an opinion regarding this vs. a related RFC from Marcelo,
Pasi, and Vijay.
2009-05-29
16 Jari Arkko State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Jari Arkko
2009-05-29
16 Amy Vezza Removed from agenda for telechat - 2009-06-04 by Amy Vezza
2009-05-29
16 Jari Arkko Responsible AD has been changed to Jari Arkko from Russ Housley
2009-05-29
16 Jari Arkko [Note]: 'The document shepherd is Basavaraj Patil <Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com>' added by Jari Arkko
2009-05-27
16 Cindy Morgan [Note]: 'Basavaraj Patil (Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com) is the document shepherd.' added by Cindy Morgan
2009-05-27
16 Cindy Morgan
This is a request for the IESG to perform a RFC3932bis review of
draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions-13.txt [1] to be published
an an Informational IRTF RFC. The document …
This is a request for the IESG to perform a RFC3932bis review of
draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions-13.txt [1] to be published
an an Informational IRTF RFC. The document has been approved for
publication by the IRSG. See below for details on prior reviews.
Please copy all correspondence to the document shepherd, Basavaraj Patil
.

--aaron

[1]
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions-13.txt

---
Aaron Falk
Chair
Internet Research Task Force
http://www.irtf.org

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Request to publish IRTF I-D
draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions-13.txt
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 19:27:54 +0200
From:
To: ,
CC:



Hello Aaron,

This is a request to publish the Mobopts RG document
draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions-13 as an Experimental
RFC.

The draft has undergone several revisions based on earlier
reviews. The latest version of the draft (rev 13) includes the changes
and edits that were suggested as part of the the IRSG Review/Poll
process. The IRSG Review/Poll was done on Rev 12 of the I-D.

There were 3 votes for "Ready to publish" and none opposing the
publication.

During the development of this document in the mobopts RG, several
people have reviewed it and the changes have been incoroporated.
The issue tracker entry includes the versions of the draft since the
IRSG review started:
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions/

-Basavaraj
2009-05-27
16 Cindy Morgan Draft Added by Cindy Morgan in state Publication Requested
2009-05-19
13 (System) New version available: draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions-13.txt
2009-01-28
12 (System) New version available: draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions-12.txt
2008-12-19
11 (System) New version available: draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions-11.txt
2008-11-03
10 (System) New version available: draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions-10.txt
2008-07-14
09 (System) New version available: draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions-09.txt
2008-04-16
08 (System) New version available: draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions-08.txt
2008-02-25
07 (System) New version available: draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions-07.txt
2007-10-12
06 (System) New version available: draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions-06.txt
2007-05-16
05 (System) New version available: draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions-05.txt
2006-11-07
04 (System) New version available: draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions-04.txt
2006-10-26
03 (System) New version available: draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions-03.txt
2006-06-27
02 (System) New version available: draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions-02.txt
2006-03-03
01 (System) New version available: draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions-01.txt
2006-02-28
00 (System) New version available: draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions-00.txt