Subject: [Mip6] [issue37] Comment by David Kessens

From: Basavaraj Patil <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 18:40:36 +0000

New submission from Basavaraj Patil <[email-masked]>:

I received the following comments from Pekka Savola on the Ops Directorate:

minor editorial issues
----------------------

  When a Binding Update is to be authenticated using such a
  precomputable binding key (Kbm), the Binding Authorization Data
  suboption MUST be present.  The Nonce Indices option SHOULD NOT
  be present.  If it is present, the nonce indices supplied MAY be
  ignored and are not included as part of the calculation for the
  authentication data, which is to be carried exactly as specified
  in [1].

==> "MAY be ignored" ?  What is the alternative?  Shouldn't this
be "MUST be ignored" or "SHOULD be ignored"? (This seems like an
editorial issue, because AFAIR "may be ignored" in English can be
interpreted with at least two levels of normativeness)

  A correspondent node and a mobile node MAY use a precomputable
  binding management key (Kbm) to manage the authentication
  requirements for binding cache management messages.

==> I'd replace "MAY" with "may", because this doesn't seem to be
something that requires uppercasing.

----------
category: Editorial
draft: draft-ietf-mip6-precfgkbm
messages: 136
nosy: bpatil
priority: Should fix
status: Pending
title: Comment by David Kessens

_________________________________________________
Mip6 issue tracker <[email-masked]>
<http://www.mip4.org/issues/tracker/mip6/issue37>
_________________________________________________

_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6