Subject: [mobile-ip] RFC3012bis - Comments from ADs (Protocol related) (ISSUE 4)

From: "Jayshree Bharatia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 12:14:43 -0600

Issue 4:

If there are multiple FAs on the visited link, is the assumption that the MN
needs to track, which FAs have issued which challenge? If so it would make
sense to make this clear.

Proposal:

The Mobile Node shall attempt the registration with only one Foreign Agent
at a time. The storage allocation of the Challenges at the Mobile Node
received from different Foreign Agents is implementation specific.

Existing Text(Section 2):

The Challenge extension, illustrated in figure 1, is inserted in the Agent
Advertisements by the Foreign Agent, in order to communicate the latest
challenge value that can be used by the mobile node to compute an
authentication for its next registration request message. The challenge is
selected by the foreign agent to provide local assurance that the mobile
node is not replaying any earlier registration request. Eastlake, et al. [5]
provides more information on generating pseudo-random numbers suitable for
use as values for the challenge.

New Text(Section 2):

The Challenge extension, illustrated in figure 1, is inserted in the Agent
Advertisements by the Foreign Agent, in order to communicate the latest
challenge value that can be used by the mobile node to compute an
authentication for its next registration request message. The challenge is
selected by the foreign agent to provide local assurance that the mobile
node is not replaying any earlier registration request. Eastlake, et al. [5]
provides more information on generating pseudo-random numbers suitable for
use as values for the challenge.

Note that the storage of different Challenges received in Agent
Advertisements from multiple Foreign Agents is implementation specific and
hence, out of scope for this specification.

Any comments?

Thanks,

Jayshree

-----Original Message-----
From: Muhanna, Ahmad [RICH2:2Q20:EXCH] 
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 9:52 AM
To: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]
Cc: 'Charlie Perkins'
Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] RFC3012bis - Comments from ADs (Protocol related)
(ISSUE 4)

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. 

4. If there are multiple FAs on the visited link, is the assumption 
   that the MN needs to track which FAs have issued which challenge? 
   If so it would make sense to make this clear. 

This absolutely very obvious. 
Do we mention any where else that the MN must keep track with all FAs which
support Reverse 
Tunneling. I mean this absolutely obvious and no further clarification is
needed. The whole RFC 
talks about a MN and A FA. 

Regards, 
Ahmad