Subject: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready Logo

From: "K.Kawaguchi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 14:58:28 +0900

Hi,

We will begin IPv6 Ready Logo of RFC3963 (NEMO basic support).
This is a program of the confidence to the NEMO product based
on RFC3963. We want to hear your opinion in regard to the test
condition in this test specification.

We have opened the preparation version of the test specification
to the public.

  http://www.ipv6ready.org/announcement/public_review20060621_nemo.html

The point that we want to hear the opinion is the following parts.
  http://cert.v6pc.jp/nemo/phase2/public_review/pdf/nemo_phase2policy-v1_0_b2.pdf

---------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Policy for Basic and Advanced Functions

Here shows the view of satisfaction of the functions belonging to Basic
Function (Priority A1) and Advanced Function (Priority A2) for Home
Agent and Mobile Router.

- HA (Home Agent)
 - Router functions defined in "Test Specifications for the IPv6 Core
   Protocols" MUST be supported.
 - Mobile network prefix registration supporting all of explicit mode,
   implicit mode, home address derived from the Mobile Network Prefix, and
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   home address derived from the Home Network Prefix is a Basic Function (A1).
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
---------------------------------------------------------------------
* supplementation) keywords
  Basic Function (Priority A1)  : It is defined as indispensable function.
                                  It is always to be tested in Logo.
  Advance Function (Priority A2): It is defined as enhanced feature.
                                  It is tested by selection in Logo.

RFC3963 has not described which method is a 'MUST'. Therefore,
we had equally treated both. However, the operation is possible
by either one.  And a lot of venders might implement only one
of methods. Now, we think that it is too rich to demand both from
all products.
We will put the bias. Two alternatives without mandating either
make non-interoperable world. So, mandating one is very reasonable.
We think naturally that home Address be configured from Home Link
Prefix is basic method same as MIPv6.
We change the above-mentioned part as follows. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
- HA (Home Agent)
 - Router functions defined in "Test Specifications for the IPv6 Core
   Protocols" MUST be supported.
 - Mobile network prefix registration supporting all of explicit mode,
   implicit mode, is a Basic Function (A1).
 - Mobile network prefix registration supporting home address derived from
   the Home Network Prefix is a Basic Function (A1).
 - Mobile network prefix registration supporting home address derived from
   the Mobile Network Prefix an Advanced Function (A2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------

We want to hear your opinion.
Do you think it is unquestionable for this priority level in which
it is made to bias in Logo?

Relational part of RFC3963
---------------------------------------------------------------------
6.2.  Mobile Network Prefix Registration

 (snip)

   -  Mobile IPv6 specification [1] requires that the Home Address in
      the Binding Update be configured from a prefix advertised on the
      home link.  Otherwise the Binding Update is rejected with status
      value 132 [1].  This specification relaxes this requirement so
      that the Home Agent rejects the Binding Update only if the Home
      Address does not belong to the prefix that the Home Agent is
      configured to serve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Best regards
---
Kiyoaki KAWAGUCHI