Subject: [netlmm] FW: I-D ACTION:draft-muhanna-mip6-binding-revocation-01.txt

From: "Ahmad Muhanna" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 15:48:09 -0500

Hello all,

Here is the updated Binding revocation draft with the changes to address
the issue that was raised by Hui on MIP6 ml.
We appreciate your comments in advance.

Regards,
Ahmad

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 2:50 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-muhanna-mip6-binding-revocation-01.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.

	Title		: Binding Revocation for IPv6 Mobility
	Author(s)	: A. Muhanna, et al.
	Filename	: draft-muhanna-mip6-binding-revocation-01.txt
	Pages		: 18
	Date		: 2007-5-29
	
The service binding revocation semantics are missing in Mobile IPv6
   Specificaion [RFC-3775] and PMIPv6 [PMIP6-SPEC].  This document

   defines the semantics of the revocation of a mobile node registration
   binding, which could have been established using a Client Mobile IPv6
   or a Proxy Mobile IPv6 signaling.  The proposed revocation mechanism
   uses generic message properties which is applicable to Mobile IPv6
   and Proxy Mobile IPv6 and can be used by any two mobility entities.
   As an example, this mechanism allows local mobility agent, involved
   in providing IP mobility services to a mobile node, to notify the
   mobility access gateway of the termination of the mobile node
   registration.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-muhanna-mip6-binding-revocatio
n-01.txt

To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to 
[email-masked] with the word unsubscribe in the body of 
the message. 
You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce 
to change your subscription settings.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the 
username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After 
logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then 
"get draft-muhanna-mip6-binding-revocation-01.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.

Send a message to:
	[email-masked].
In the body type:
	"FILE
/internet-drafts/draft-muhanna-mip6-binding-revocation-01.txt".
	
NOTE:	The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
	MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
	feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
	command.  To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
	a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail
readers
	exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
	"multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
	up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
	how to manipulate these messages.

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.
_______________________________________________
netlmm mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm

---

From: "Youn-Hee Han" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 19:33:10 +0900

Hi Sri,

>From the pages 20 and 30 of draft-ietf-netlmm-pmip6-00.txt,
we can know MAG must insert NAI option into PBU, so that 
LMA uses it for identifying the MN.

Then, should the NAI option be also included in PBAck 
to make MAG use it for identifying the MN?

If it is yes, I'd like to suggest that an explicit statement 
about it should be put in the next version of draft. 
Currently, there is no clear description about that 
how MAG identifies an MN on the receipt of PBAck.

Best Regards,

Youn-Hee

---

From: "Sri Gundavelli" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 23:22:32 -0700

Hi Youn-Hee, 

> From: Youn-Hee Han [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 3:33 AM
> To: 'Sri Gundavelli'
> Cc: 'netlmm'
> Subject: NAI Option in PBAck.
> 
> 
> Hi Sri,
> 

Agreed. The conclusion of the "Timestamp vs Seq Number"
thread, Issue# 160, stated the MN-Id/NAI to be returned
in the PBA. See below.

  "The PBA must always return the MN-ID in order to for the MAG
  to always be able to match the request to the response. As there
  may be a collision of sequence number for the pending requests 
  for different mobiles, using their respective seq number."

The -01 version, that we will publish late next week, will reflect
the same.

Thanks
Sri