Subject: [Mip4] Serious flaw in RFC4433?

From: Ville Nuorvala <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 11:07:24 +0300

Hello,

I just noticed a IMHO serious flaw in the dynamic HA assignment RFC.
Surprisingly this didn't even appear to be in the errata.

The dynamic HA extension in section 3.4 is defined as a skippable
extension, but it uses the long extension format. However, RFC 3344
section 1.10 clearly  states that the long extension format is only
applicable to non-skippable extensions.

It is also clear that no skippable extension can use the long format, as
a legacy node receiving this unknown extension could impossibly know if
 it was long or short and would thus be unable to parse the rest of the
message.

Regards,
Ville Nuorvala

-- 
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: "Kent Leung \(kleung\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:29:02 -0700

Hi Ville.  I have submitted an errata for this issue, noted in
attachment.  It has yet been published.

Kent

-----Original Message-----
From: Ville Nuorvala [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 1:07 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Mip4] Serious flaw in RFC4433?

Hello,

Regards,
Ville Nuorvala

---

From: Ville Nuorvala <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 09:43:27 +0300

> attachment.  It has yet been published.

That's good.

Ville