Subject: [Mip4] RFC3012bis - Issue2-Change1

From: "Jayshree Bharatia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 13:38:34 -0500

Hello all,

Currently, we have a proposal to add new guideline on when to omit a
Mobile-Foreign Challenge Extension in a Registration Reply. Please let me
know if you have any opinion/suggestion. It will be good if we can finalize
this in couple of weeks.

Regards,
Jayshree

(Change 1)
Section 3.3
From:
The Foreign Agent SHOULD include a new Mobile-Foreign Challenge Extension in
any Registration Reply, successful or not.  If the foreign agent includes
this extension in a successful Registration Reply, the extension SHOULD
precede a Mobile-Foreign authentication extension.  Suppose the Registration
Reply includes a Challenge extension from the Home Agent, and the foreign
agent wishes to include another Challenge extension with the Registration
Reply for use by the mobile node.  In that case, the foreign agent MUST
delete the Challenge extension from the Home Agent from the Registration
Reply, along with any Foreign-Home authentication extension, before
appending the new Challenge extension to the Registration Reply.  

To: 
The Foreign Agent SHOULD include a previously unused challenge
Mobile-Foreign Challenge Extension in any Registration Reply, successful or
not.  If the foreign agent includes this extension in a successful
Registration Reply, the extension SHOULD precede a Mobile-Foreign
authentication extension.  Suppose the Registration Reply includes a
Challenge extension from the Home Agent, and the foreign agent wishes to
include another Challenge extension with the Registration Reply for use by
the mobile node.  In that case, the foreign agent MUST delete the Challenge
extension from the Home Agent from the Registration Reply, along with any
Foreign-Home authentication extension, before appending the new Challenge
extension to the Registration Reply. 

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. 
  
If a foreign agent has conditions in which it omits the inclusion of a
Mobile-Foreign Challenge Extension in the Registration Reply, it still MUST
respond with an agent advertisement containing a previously unused challenge
in response to a subsequent agent solicitation from the same mobile node.
Otherwise (when the said conditions are not met) the foreign agent MUST
include a previously unused challenge in any Registration Reply, successful
or not.
  
A mobile node MUST be prepared to use a challenge from a unicast or
multicast Agent Advertisement 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.

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

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 18:25:47 +0200

Hi Jayshree,

This looks pretty good, some minor proposed changes inline:

> The Foreign Agent SHOULD include a previously unused challenge
"unused challenge" ==> "unused"

> a new challenge has been multicast recently. 

In the original text proposal on the list, this paragraph continued with:
 "The Foreign Agent could then assume that the mobile node with high
  likelihood has received and can use the multicast challenge."
Unless there was some specific objection to this, I think it'd be good
to keep this text, too.

> Reply, and MUST solicit for one if it has not already received one in a

Right.