Subject: [Mip4] RFC3012bis: Proposal for Issue2-Change3

From: "Jayshree Bharatia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 14:47:17 -0500

This change further extends point mentioned in change 1 for issue 2. The
proposal from Henrik was to clarify the use of challenge. This text is
intended as a new paragraph in section 3.3. 

"If the challenge most recently issued to the soliciting mobile node has not
been previously used (as defined in Section 1.1), the most recent challenge
unicast to the mobile node through a registration reply or a unicast agent
advertisement SHOULD be repeated in the registration reply."

This proposal was further modified by Pete differentiating the processing at
the FA for the registered and unregistered users:

"When responding to an unregistered MN with an unsuccessful Registration
Reply, the FA SHOULD include the same challenge that was last included in a
multicast Agent Advertisement.  When responding to a registered MN with a
successful or unsuccessful Registration Reply, the FA SHOULD include the
same challenge that was last included in a multicast Agent Advertisement,
when that challenge is previously unused by the MN.  Otherwise, the FA
SHOULD include the same challenge that was previously unicast to the MN in a
Registration Reply or Agent Advertisement, unless that challenge was
previously used.  In that case, the FA SHOULD create a new challenge and
return it to the MN, storing a copy of it with the visitor list entry for
that MN."

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