Subject: [mobile-ip] WG Last Call

From: "Fredrik Johansson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 14:17:13 +0200

Hi,

Pat, sorry for the late comments, the draft looks alot better now but there
are some issues I'd like to address.

Section 1.
"2. If the mobile node does not have a Mobility Security Association
       with the foreign agent, it includes an MN-FA Key Request
       extension."

suggested change:

"2. If the mobile node does not have a Mobility Security Association
       with the foreign agent, it SHOULD include an MN-FA Key Request
       extension."

Section 1.
"3. Similarly, if the mobile node does not have a Mobility Security
       Association with the home agent, it adds an MN-HA Key Request
       extension."

suggested change
"3. Similarly, if the mobile node does not have a Mobility Security
       Association with the home agent, it MUST add an MN-HA Key Request
       extension."

Section 2.

I'm not a security expert so correct me if I'm wrong. The defined algorithm
identifiers includes the SHA-1 algorithm, but where does the key come in.
Should it be used in prefix/sufix mode or should it be HMAC-SHA-1?

perhaps it should be:
"Algorithm Identifier   Name                Reference
      ---------------------  ------------------  ------------
      1                      MD5/prefix+suffix   RFC 2002 [10]
      2                      HMAC MD5            RFC 2104 [5]
      3                      SHA-1/prefix+sufic  FIPS 180-1 [9]
      4                      HMAC SHA-1          ??????????
"

Section 4.
I can't find reference 12 (Registration Keys for Route Optimization) but I
can find the extension pointed to in reference 11 (Generalized Key
Distribution Extensions for Mobile IP)

suggested change is to remove ref 12 and use 11 instead.

Section 5.
The "Unsolicited MN-HA Key Material From AAA Subtype" includes a Lifetime, a
Lifetime is also included in the "Genralized MN-HA Key Reply Extension" (see
ref 11), i.e. the lifetime in the subtype is redundant so I suggest that it
will be removed.

Section 6 and 7.

The "Generalized MN-FA Key Request Extension" and the "Generalized MN-HA Key
Request Extension" in ref 11 both include a Mobile Node SPI which indicates
which SPI the mobile node would like to use in its security association with
the respective node. In section 6 and 7 a subtype is introduced to these
extensions which includes a SPI which the mobile node would like to use in
its security assocition with respecive node. I believe this is redundant
information.

Suggested change: Use the SPI in the "Generalized" extensions and have the
subtype data field be zero in length. Thus the subtype indicates that it is
a MN-?A Key Request from AAA Subtype and that it uses the SPI indicated by
the Mobile Node SPI in the Generalized Extension.

One last thing has to do with the reference section. Ref 11 is:
"[11] C. Perkins and P. Calhoun.  Generalized Key Distribution
        Extensions for Mobile IP (work in progress).
        draft-ietf-mobileip-gen-key-02.txt, March 2001."

and I can't find the draft as wg document. However, I can find it as
draft-perkins-mobileip-gen-key-03.txt.
So can we make it a WG document? And does it need to be a RFC in order to be
referenced from the aaa-key doc, or is it possible for a RFC to reference a
draft?

thanks

/Fredrik

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked]
>[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Phil Roberts
>Sent: den 8 juni 2001 21:08
>To: [email-masked]'
>Subject: [mobile-ip] WG Last Call
>
>
>This is a Mobile IP WG last call for the I-D
>draft-ietf-mobileip-aaa-key-06.txt
>AAA Registration Keys for Mobile IP. This draft will be sent to the IESG
>requesting a proposed standard status to be associated with it at
>the end of
>the last call
>period. Please send your comments to the WG discussion list.
>
>WG Last call issued on : Jun 8, 2001
>Expires on : Jun 22, 2001
>
>Basavaraj Patil
>Phil Roberts