[15:04:54] --- deng has joined
[15:07:55] <deng> comments on agenda?
[15:07:56] <deng> no
[15:08:01] <deng> ?
[15:08:07] --- deng has left
[15:08:18] --- deng has joined
[15:08:23] <deng> ?
[15:09:18] --- deng has left: Disconnected
[15:12:49] --- deng has joined
[15:12:55] <deng> is anything wrong with this room?
[15:13:31] <deng> agenda
[15:14:21] <deng> new work item under consideration
[15:14:56] <deng> Kuntal Configuration Options
[15:15:25] <deng> from HA to MN during authetication
[15:15:59] <deng> MN requestion configuration from FA
[15:16:31] <deng> reuse DHCP option code
[15:18:12] <deng> example: message format, include entity type HA =1 FA=2
[15:18:35] <deng> Same dhcp option
[15:18:55] <deng> home prefix and dns server ip address
[15:19:18] --- Brian.Haley has joined
[15:19:19] <deng> HA response home prefix and dns ip address
[15:19:51] <deng> open issue: NON-dhcp parameter need?
[15:20:18] <deng> Sri: domain information, information sufficient
[15:20:38] <deng> Peter: not conclude example
[15:21:13] <deng> pigyback dhcp option
[15:21:54] <deng> Henrik: issue, make sense , type indicate whether it is dhcp or non-dhcp parameter
[15:22:08] <deng> Kuntal: good idea
[15:22:46] <deng> yoshi: how to send dhcp server address
[15:23:07] <deng> dhcp option end 256
[15:24:15] <deng> Kent: new extension type for non-dhcp option type
[15:24:40] <deng> Kent: could be subtype for dhcp , non-dhcp option
[15:25:10] <deng> Kuntal: subtype droped before, could readd
[15:26:16] <deng> vijay: Enterprise connectivity with MIP4 andMobike
[15:26:30] <deng> review from Jari and tJ
[15:26:37] <deng> target BCP
[15:27:13] <deng> ikev2 vpn are used with mobike
[15:27:20] <deng> ikev1 mobility extension removed
[15:27:54] <deng> Kent: string extension
[15:28:44] <deng> support revocation message
[15:29:14] <deng> if foreign agent add this extension,
[15:29:19] <deng> it must MHA supported
[15:29:51] <deng> example: prepaid service
[15:30:38] <deng> Madjid: Radius MIP4 extension
[15:30:48] <deng> NAI/IP address
[15:31:12] <deng> attrribute table added
[15:31:32] <deng> seperate susgestioned and already attribute
[15:31:56] <deng> attribute size limization
[15:32:45] <deng> Diameter_radius message translation
[15:32:57] <deng> distingcition FA and HA
[15:33:03] <deng> new attribute needed?
[15:33:15] <deng> MIp-MA type needed?
[15:34:14] <deng> Remainging Work, MN-AAA authenticatior is not included
[15:34:43] <deng> Kent: they already defini, could not be considered
[15:35:06] <deng> vijay: MN - AAA , not challenge extension
[15:35:59] <deng> AAA keys how to use MN-AAA extension
[15:36:11] <deng> Madjid: MN-AAA extension si deifne early
[15:36:47] <deng> Three way to use MN-AAA
[15:36:51] <deng> MN generate challenge
[15:36:59] <deng> No challenge , but stamp
[15:37:06] <deng> first on ei sbad idea
[15:37:21] <deng> second, time stamp not fit well
[15:37:49] <deng> discuss offline
[15:38:56] <deng> ViJay : proposal :remove from this draft, not generate challenge from MN
[15:39:10] <deng> there is no anti-replay problem
[15:40:51] <deng> Henrik: kent summary already, vijay comment offline.
[15:41:56] <deng> Henrik: new charter new added hopefully
[15:42:09] <deng> differ from Diameter Requirement clearly
[15:42:47] <deng> Madjid: it has been already added in the document, do i need seperate document
[15:43:15] <deng> Henrik: seperate is better
[15:43:22] <deng> submit here or radius?
[15:43:25] <deng> Henrik : here
[15:44:07] <deng> Henrik: IPv6 over MIPv4 and MIPv6 over IPv6,
[15:44:28] <deng> chair, not take decision now
[15:44:53] <deng> Hesham: Aim to allow operator MIP to use MIP6,
[15:45:13] <deng> Kent : I agree
[15:45:55] <deng> Vijay: Move on MIP6 in the home network,
[15:46:50] <deng> Hesham: not force people to do this, mip4 widely deployed
[15:47:14] <deng> Rajeev: question is travesal already in mip6
[15:47:18] <deng> why not here
[15:47:41] <deng> Henrik: I am involved in MIP6 team , why not here , other than in mip6
[15:48:01] <deng> Kent: leverage one signaling ,
[15:48:23] <deng> chair kent: v6 over mip4 draft here
[15:48:40] <deng> vijay: 3gpp2 really want mip6?
[15:49:00] <deng> henrik: here not forbid people to move to mip6
[15:49:19] <deng> Hesham: people who deployed mp4 here , how to move to MIP6?
[15:49:39] <deng> For imformation only, how many people in favor in the future
[15:49:46] <deng> a little um....
[15:49:51] <deng> how many object;
[15:49:57] <deng> almost small
[15:50:05] <deng> 4:0
[15:50:12] <deng> decision is took
[15:50:39] <deng> use mip4 signaling in ipv6? MIP6 signaling ?
[15:51:03] <deng> Parviz: GRE
[15:51:16] <deng> Chair is hate presenter
[15:51:50] <deng> GRE tunneling
[15:52:02] <deng> allow GRE tunneling in mip4 FA
[15:52:08] <deng> even in WiMax
[15:52:25] <deng> overlap private ipv4 address
[15:52:32] <deng> distinguish users
[15:53:17] <deng> home agent and FA assign GRE key
[15:53:27] <deng> HA also could assign GRE key
[15:54:07] <deng> 3144, overwrite Gbig setting
[15:54:33] <deng> allow a new extension sent from FA to HA to overwrite G-big
[15:54:48] <deng> Henrik: question, is identification key, not encruption key
[15:55:04] <deng> FA-coa
[15:55:48] <deng> how about co-coa?
[15:56:37] <deng> question: this extension is skippable or not?
[15:56:44] <deng> recommendation is not skippable
[15:57:03] <deng> behaviour should be allowed in this draft
[15:57:24] <deng> HA allocate this key, FA allocate potential key
[15:57:43] <deng> comments, WG draft?
[15:58:18] <deng> Kent: good idea,
[15:58:26] <deng> Peter: I like it too, 3GPP2
[15:58:43] <deng> Peter: not confort , G-bit overwrite
[15:58:52] <deng> IP in IP tunnel don't set anything
[15:59:17] <deng> over make network not confortable
[15:59:30] <deng> henrik : will FA-HA authentication change?
[16:00:15] <deng> think more
[16:00:32] <deng> Kuntal: carrier care gre or not?
[16:00:40] <deng> let them do as them like
[16:00:46] <deng> why depend MN request
[16:01:12] <deng> Kent: this challenge 3344
[16:02:02] <deng> Sri: if UDP tunel request
[16:02:29] <deng> who assign? FA or HA?
[16:02:30] <deng> both
[16:02:57] <deng> operator could do as they like , draft level
[16:03:42] <deng> HA assign bi-direction
[16:04:24] <deng> on behal of both side, FA is not neceecity to assign
[16:04:52] <deng> Kuntal: why HA asign both keys?
[16:05:07] <deng> Peter: receiver alllocate key
[16:05:22] <deng> Kent: efficient HA assign the key
[16:05:55] <deng> Henrik: interoperability
[16:07:37] <deng> two different key assigned by HA
[16:08:02] <deng> receiver side is the key
[16:08:20] <deng> not technical disadvantage for HA assign
[16:08:57] <deng> Kuntal: how does FA know,
[16:09:06] <deng> Kent: FA doesn't need
[16:09:14] <deng> Henrik : kent will prepare some text discuss later
[16:28:04] <Brian.Haley> hi hui, good job, i've got to go, we should talk soon
[16:28:24] <deng> thanks
[16:28:26] <deng> bye:)
[16:28:36] <deng> fmip4 over 802.16e
[16:29:28] <deng> Junghoon
[16:30:06] <deng> Preditive Mode over 802.16e
[16:30:41] <deng> Interested?
[16:31:27] <deng> Peter: fmip6 in mipshop only ipv6?
[16:32:12] <deng> Rajeev: mipshop is mostly ipv6
[16:32:16] <deng> it's ok
[16:32:27] <deng> is this fmip4 over anything, why 16e?
[16:33:08] <deng> fmip over 802.11 down in that wg
[16:33:17] <deng> quesiton, which wg should go to?
[16:34:12] <deng> good stuff
[16:34:24] <deng> Kent: interesting work, this wg as well
[16:35:17] <deng> Henrik: further work is under way, if charter go through,
[16:36:58] <deng> Henrik: multple interface author is not here, interesting work
[16:39:33] <deng> thanks, see you next time and mailing list
[16:39:35] --- deng has left