Subject: [mobile-ip] Q: GNAIE

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 15:20:20 -0500

RFC2794 already has a type value (131) assigned to the MN-NAI extension.
draft-ietf-mobileip-gnaie-02.txt proposes in section 2.1 a new type for the
same extension. Do we really require this? 

The problem that I have is that the same data (MN-NAI) will have different
type values depending on the format of the extension in use (MIER or
othewise).

-Basavaraj

---

From: Gopal Dommety <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 13:41:02 -0700

>same extension. Do we really require this?

I don't think having two types for the same extension is a good idea.

-Gopal

---

From: Patrice Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 13:42:06 -0700 (PDT)

> type values depending on the format of the extension in use (MIER or

Correct.

I suppose it would be OK for GNAIE NOT to re-define the MN-NAI since it is
already specified in RFC 2794. As it stands, my code would accept both formats.
 PatC

---

From: "Fredrik Johansson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:05:02 +0200

>already specified in RFC 2794. As it stands, my code would accept

Do you mean to keep the old format for the mn-nai (type,length,nai) and
remove the mn-nai sub type from the generalized nai extension?

/Fredrik

---

From: Patrice Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 06:22:38 -0700 (PDT)

> remove the mn-nai sub type from the generalized nai extension?

I believe that is what people are asking for. I agree that obsoleting RFC 2794
would be a BAD thing.

PatC