OPEN ISSUE: Standards Track

[Basavaraj.Patil at nokia.com]

> Early review from IPsec folks might have been useful; I'm not 
> sure how much of that did indeed happen before the IESG noticed the issue.

This is the key issue. If there had been a review by some of
the IPsec experts or cross-exchange of views between the Mobile
IP and IPsec WGs, we may not have ended up in the sticky situation
of being rejected by the IESG after WG LCs etc. and a few years
in the development of the protocol.

The problem that resulted in resetting the clock on Mobile IPv6
is the fact that a detailed review by the security folks was only
done at the very end by the IESG (far too late in the game). The
issue related to early reviews and feedback to WGs from other
areas has been captured by the PS WG docs. 

> 
> IMO the problem was very real, and the action being the only 
> responsible thing to do.  Looking back, maybe MIPv6 could have been 
> published as Experimental (or the like) as is, but definitely not PS.
> 

Maybe. But the key lesson to be learn here is that the Mobile IP WG
spent about 3 years or more before the IESG said that the security
solution based on IPsec was broken. The timeline to arrive at such
a conclusion is a serious problem for any standards work.

-Basavaraj

> 
> 
> -- 
> Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
> Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
> Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
> 
>