Subject: RE: [Mip4] review: draft-ietf-mip4-rfc3012bis-04.txt

From: "Kent Leung \(kleung\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 09:41:49 -0800

On this particular topic, I don't understand what is missing in the
details to support the CCoA mode?  Since the draft covers MN-AAA
authentication with NAS in between, I would like to see both FA (CoA)
and HA (CCoA) modes supported.  Where else would we be able to cover
just the CCoA for MN-AAA authentication if not in this draft?

Kent

> 
> not at this late stage. its fine as it is. however, I have 
> one comment on the support for co-located CoA mode. the draft 
> claims it supports it but there really isnt enough detail. 
> IMO, it should be clarified that only FA mode is described in 
> the draft.
> 

-- 
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: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 11:28:04 -0800

> just the CCoA for MN-AAA authentication if not in this draft?

for e.g. who generates the challenge in co-located mode?

Vijay

---

From: "Charles E. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 17:05:23 -0800

Hello folks,

I do not believe the document should support co-located CoA
mode.  The point is to enable some mechanism for use by the
foreign agent.  There is no need for a mobile node to use the
challenge.  No additional replay protection is afforded.

I would prefer for the use of the extension to be
prohibited whenever the 'D' bit is set.

Even when a foreign agent is sending 'R' bit advertisements,
there isn't any significant functionality gained.

Perhaps it's technically feasible to have the challenge in
such situations, but (i) it is wasteful and (ii) I would not like
to see it become considered a mandatory part of any
mobile node implementation where co-located care-of
addresses are used, for whatever reason.

Regards,
Charlie P.

PS. Please excuse if I have overlooked some e-mail about this.