Subject: [MEXT] [mext] #14: References to Bootstrapping [Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>]

From: "mext" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 20:09:55 -0000

Ticket #14: References to Bootstrapping  [Vijay Devarapalli  <[email-masked]>]

 References to Bootstrapping  [Vijay Devarapalli  <[email-masked]>]

 RFC 3775 currently assumes that the mobile node is at least
 pre-configured with the home prefix it needs to be using. Now
 that we have developed bootstrapping mechanisms that allow a
 mobile to dynamically configure a home agent and the home
 address we have to refer to them in 3775bis.

 Here is the proposed text.

 OLD:

    <NONE>

 NEW: (to be added at the end of section 4.1)

    This document assumes that the mobile node is configured with the home
    prefix for the mobile node to be able to discover a home agent and
    configure a home address. This might be limiting in deployments where
    the home agent and the home address for the mobile node needs to be
    assigned dynamically. Additional mechanisms have been specified for
    the mobile node to dynamically configure a home agent, a home address
    and the home prefix. These mechanisms are described in [38] and [39].

 {{{
 #!html

 <TABLE CELLSPACING=5 border="0">
 <TR><TH>   <TD>[38]<TD>
           <TD>Giaretta, G., Kempf, J., and V. Devarapalli, "Mobile IPv6
           Bootstrapping in Split Scenario", RFC 5026, October 2007.
 <TR><TH>   <TD>[39]<TD>   <TD>Chowdhury, K. and A. Yegin,
 "MIP6-bootstrapping for the
           Integrated Scenario",
           draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-integrated-dhc-05 (work in
           progress), July 2007.
 </TABLE>
 }}}

 The intention is to still allow the mobile node to be
 pre-configured with the home prefix or even with a home address.

 There might be other places in RFC 3775 that might require more
 changes. I can scan for those, once we agree to make the change.

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

 George Tsirtsis  <[email-masked]>

 I am ok with the text you propose below as long as the integrated
 draft proceeds in time. We will have to check this again when
 RFC3775bis goes through last call process.

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

 Vijay Devarapalli  <[email-masked]>:

 It shouldn't matter. Both bootstrapping documents are listed as
 Informative references. The RFC editor goes ahead with a
 publication unless there is a normative dependency which is still
 pending publication.

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

 Charles E. Perkins  <[email-masked]> wrote:

 I would like to slightly reword the first sentence
 as follows:

    This document has been written under the assumption that the
    mobile node has knowledge of the home prefix, so that the mobile
    node can discover a home agent and configure a home address.

----------------------------------------+-----------------------------------
 Reporter:  [email-masked]       |       Owner:  [email-masked]
     Type:  enhancement                 |      Status:  new                  
 Priority:  minor                       |   Milestone:  milestone1           
Component:  draft-ietf-mext-rfc3775bis  |     Version:  2.0                  
 Severity:  Active WG Document          |    Keywords:  bootstrapping        
----------------------------------------+-----------------------------------
-- 
Ticket URL: <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/wg/mext/trac/ticket/14>
mext <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/mext/>
_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext