Subject: [Mip4] WG Last Call on draft-mip4-faerr-00.txt

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 10:05:02 +0200

This message announces a WG last call on:

 "Foreign Agent Error Extension for Mobile IPv4"
  - draft-mip4-faerr-00.txt

The last call will conclude at 24:00 UTC on Friday, 05 November 2004.

draft-mip4-faerr-00.txt defines a new Mobile IP extension for carrying
an error code from a foreign agent, which informs the mobile node of
foreign-agent specific errors independently of the result code
inserted by the home agent.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
 <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mip4-faerr-00.txt>

Please respond to this WG last call:

* If you have no comments on the draft, and support its advancement,
  simply respond with a line containing something like

   "I support the advancement of this document to the IESG with a
    request for publication as proposed standard."

  If you have comments, please use a line similar to the one above, and
  supplement this with your comments.

* If you *don't* support its advancement, respond with a line containing
  something like the following, supplemented by your comments -

   "I don't support the advancement of this document to the IESG with
    a request for publication as proposed standard, for the following
    reasons:"
   ...

	Pete & Henrik

-- 
Mip4 mailing list: [email-masked]
    Web interface: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4
     Charter page: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mip4-charter.html
Supplemental site: http://www.mip4.org/

---

From: Naveen PaulKandasamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 16:10:00 -0700

and  i have the following comments abt the draft...

- Length field is mentioned as 4.
think it should be 2, excluding type/length fields as per rfc 3344 ?

- in the case of a MN using collocated CoA without R bit
set, can the MN ignore the FA error extn  (in case if some malicious 
node added this extn,)
 since this extn does not seem to relate to this scenario ?

also,  since this extension is unprotected, wondering if we should
mention abt the FA behavior when a (malicious) node between FA
and HA appends this extn to the RRP ? is the FA supposed to drop the
RRP considering it a parse error ? am not sure if this is a generic problem
 for all extns and has been  addressed elsewhere ?

thanks,
naveen.