Subject: [Mip4] RFC 3344 and draft-ietf-mip4-rfc3344bis-05.txt IANA Considerations

From: Acee Lindem <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 17:59:28 -0400

Hi Charlie,

Why is the type 0 for one-byte pad listed in section 6.3 under the  
"Extensions for Mobile IP Registrations"?

6.3.  Extensions to Mobile IP Registration Messages

    The Mobile IP messages, specified within this document, and  
listed in
    Section 1.8 and Section 6.1, may have extensions.  Mobile IP message
    extensions all share the same number space, even if they are to be
    applied to different Mobile IP messages.  The number space for  
Mobile
    IP message extensions is specified within this document.   
Approval of
    new extension numbers is subject to Expert Review, and a
    specification is required [14].

        Type  Name                                             Reference
        ----  --------------------------------------------     ---------
        0     One-byte Padding
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        32    Mobile-Home Authentication                       3.5.2
        33    Mobile-Foreign Authentication                    3.5.3
        34    Foreign-Home Authentication                      3.5.4

Clearly, that is not the intent nor what IANA has reserved:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobileip-numbers

Thanks,
Acee

-- 
Mip4 mailing list: [email-masked]
    Web interface: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4
     Charter page: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mip4-charter.html
Supplemental site: http://www.mip4.org/

---

From: "Charles E. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 14:23:10 -0700

Hello Acee,

The first, best answer I can give is that I don't know why
that padding extension is listed there.

Since it would be for UDP payloads, I don't immediately
see why it should be needed.  I don't remember hearing
anyone express a need for it.  There is not any text in the
body of the specification describing such an extension.
I don't remember asking IANA to put it in there, but I did
not comb through all my emails with IANA to be sure.
I seem to have some very hazy memory of a discussion
about whether such a padding extension would be needed,
but I can't resolve when or where or in what context.

I think the simplest thing would be to just remove it,
but if there are implementations out there relying on the
existing of the padding extension, we should respect that.
If more detail is needed, I could make a diff between each
previous version of the Internet Drafts of the specification,
but I'd prefer to avoid having to do that.

Regards,
Charlie P.

ext Acee Lindem wrote:
>    The Mobile IP messages, specified within this document, and listed in
>    applied to different Mobile IP messages.  The number space for Mobile
>    IP message extensions is specified within this document.  Approval of

---

From: Acee Lindem <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 10:49:29 -0400

Hello Charlie,
I'd vote to remote it from the revised draft since, as you pointed  
out, this usage is not described in body of the RFC 3344 (or the  
revised draft). If there are clients that send this pad byte and need  
to be supported, I'd think that could be handled outside the  
specification since it was never intended or really specified that  
this extension should be used for mobile IP messages. However, I'll  
leave this to your wisdom and discretion.
Thanks,
Acee
On Aug 7, 2007, at 5:23 PM, Charles E. Perkins wrote:

>>        Type  Name                                              
>> Reference

---

From: "Marks, Robert" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 12:15:46 -0400

Hi Acee and Charlie,

The usage (for ICMP messages) is described in section 2.1.3 in the
draft. Section 6.3 refers to section 1.8, in which the following text
appears:

   o  The second set consists of those extensions which may appear only
      in ICMP Router Discovery messages [5].  In this document, the
      following Types are defined for Extensions appearing in ICMP
      Router Discovery messages:

         0 One-byte Padding (encoded with no Length nor Data field)
         16 Mobility Agent Advertisement
         19 Prefix-Lengths

So it seems there is sufficient reason not to remove it.

BR,
Bob

-----Original Message-----
From: Acee Lindem [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 9:49 AM
To: Charles E. Perkins
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Mip4] RFC 3344 and draft-ietf-mip4-rfc3344bis-05.txtIANA
Considerations

Hello Charlie,

---

From: "Marks, Robert" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 15:12:00 -0400

Hi Acee,

I'm afraid I misunderstood your email. I fully agree with removing the
extension only from section 6.3.

BR,

Bob

________________________________

From: Acee Lindem [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 11:36 AM
To: Marks, Robert
Cc: Charles E. Perkins; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Mip4] RFC 3344 and draft-ietf-mip4-rfc3344bis-05.txtIANA
Considerations

Hi Bob, 

Since 6.3 documents IANA code-points for "Extensions to Mobile IP
Registration Messages" and the referenced text from section 1.8
specifically restricts the listed extensions to ICMP Router Discovery
messages, I'd guess that the inclusion of the One-byte Padding in
section 6.3 was simply a cut-and-paste error that was never caught. 

Luckily, IANA never included it or it got caught in the IANA review. See
the following excerpt from
http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobileip-numbers

<<< snip, snip, snip >>>