Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] RFC3012bis - Comments from ADs (Protocol related) (ISSUE No. 9)

From: "Jayshree Bharatia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 13:23:08 -0600

Issue 9: Section 3.2- It seems odd that the Mobile-Foreign challenge is
carried between the FA and HA. In fact, its use there seems to be different
in that it seems to be a cookie used to reject bogus registration replies
from the HA. This odd use then results in having the FA be required to
replace the challenge it receives from the HA as specified in 3.3. If there
is need for a cookie/challenge between FA and HA, that seems to be
completely separate from the MN-FA challenge
 
Proposal:
I agree that this is non ideal usage of challenge extension. But currently
there is no standalone/explicit mechanism for the protection against the
bogus Registration Reply received from the Home Agent if there is no SA
between the FA and the HA. Also, removing this functionally will cause issue
of backward compatibility with RFC3012.
 
Hence, my suggestion is to keep this mechansim as it is. Please let me know
if you have any other suggestions.
 
Thanks,
Jayshree

-----Original Message-----
From: Muhanna, Ahmad [RICH2:2Q20:EXCH] 
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 10:44 AM
To: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]
Cc: 'Charlie Perkins'
Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] RFC3012bis - Comments from ADs (Protocol related)
(ISSUE No. 9)

Please see comments inline. 

Regards; 
Ahmad Muhanna 

Non-editorial comments associated with RFC3012bis: 

Please post your comments with the appropriate issue number in the subject
line (instead of simply replying to this email).

-Chairs. 

9. It seems odd that the Mobile-Foreign challenge is carried between 
   the FA and HA. In fact, its use there seems to be different in that 
   it seems to be a cookie used to reject bogus registration replies 
   from the HA. This odd use then results in having the FA be required 
   to replace the challenge it receives from the HA as specified in 
   3.3. If there is need for a cookie/challenge between FA and HA, 
   that seems to be completely separate from the MN-FA challenge. 

I think the same argument of ISSUE No. 8 can be made here too. 
This is an existing text in RFC3012 and it will cause a lot of 
backward compatibility issues changing it. 

Regards, 
Ahmad