Subject: RE: [Mip4] New revision for rfc3344bis document

From: "Jayshree Bharatia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 12:51:12 -0400

Hello Charlie,
 
We had some mailing list discussion earlier regarding issue 17 which is
related to the support of a nonzero unicast HA address (section 3.8.3.2). I
don't see those agreed changes in 3344bis draft. It will be good if those
changes are added to the draft.

Regards,
Jayshree

-----Original Message-----
From: Charles E.Perkins [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 1:08 PM
To: Mobile IPv4 Mailing List
Subject: [Mip4] New revision for rfc3344bis document

Hello folks,

I have created a new revision of the rfc3344bis document,
and I would like to submit it soon to the Internet Drafts directories unless
there is a good reason for holding it.

The outstanding issues have been resolved except for
possibly issue #45, but even so it is useful to have
a new revision submitted for consideration.  In this
e-mail, I will describe the current changes which
have been made to the specification in a proposed
attempt to resolve issue #45.  If more text is needed,
another document revision will be created, hopefully
before the meeting in San Diego.

In order to prevent a rogue foreign-agent from
denying a mobile node's deregistration by simply
attaching a bad Foreign-Home authentication extension,
the home agent is now mandated to ignore such
extensions when applied to a deregistration message
(i.e., zero lifetime).

For this a new paragraph has been added to section 3.8.2.2:

   A deregistration which is passed through a foreign agent which is
   different from the the one whose care-of address is being
   deregistered MAY add a Foreign-Home Authentication Extension to such
   a deregistration.  However, as this deregistration concerns a
   different foreign agent than the one whose authentication extension,
   the home agent MUST disregard the Foreign-Home Authentication
   Extension of such a deregistration.  The remaining validity checks,
   as described in Section 3.8.2.1, are required in full.

This requires a change to section 3.8.2.1, bullet item (c), first sentence
to now read: 

      c) If the home agent shares a mobility security association with
         the foreign agent, and this is a registration request (has
	 non-zero lifetime), the home agent MUST check for the presence
         of a valid Foreign-Home Authentication Extension.

In section 3.7.2.1, first sentence, clarification about when code 77 is
valid:

      Requests with the 'D' bit set to 0, nonzero lifetime, and
      specifying a care-of address not offered by the foreign agent,
      MUST be rejected with code 77 (invalid care-of address).

Thanks to Henrik for fashioning the above text replacements
and additions.

Regards,
Charlie P.

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

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 09:46:48 +0200

Hi Jayshree,

> changes are added to the draft.

Would it be OK with you to continue this discussion without holding up the
submission of this revision of 3344bis?  We still don't have a -00 out there,
so I'd really like to get this one posted so we have an updated baseline
to work from.

	Henrik