Subject: [Mip4] RFC3012bis: Proposal for Issue2-Change1

From: "Jayshree Bharatia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 11:51:45 -0500

The original proposal from Henrik was to mandate a challenge in a
Registration Reply. After few email exchanges, it was decided that the
current text in section 3.3 (RFC3012bis (version 05) ) is ok. In addition to
the current text, Henrik proposed the following text to be used as a
guidance/background:

(section 3.3)
One example of a situation where the Foreign Agent MAY omit the inclusion of
a Mobile-Foreign Challenge Extension in the Registration Reply would be when
a new challenge has been multicast recently. The Foreign Agent could then
assume that the mobile node with high likelihood has received and can use
the multicast challenge. A mobile node MUST be prepared to use a multicast
challenge in lieu of one returned in a Registration Reply, and MUST solicit
for one if it has not already received one in a Registration Reply or Agent
Advertisement.

_______________________________________________
Mip4 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4