Subject: [mobile-ip] current issue situation

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 23:13:36 +0300

I'd like to report on the current situation with issues in Mobile IPv6.
As we are editing the final things to Draft 18 at the moment, we'd
like to ensure that the issues marked as adopted really have been
adopted in everyone's opinion. And are all issues accounted for,
or is something missing? Also, we need to close the few remaining
issues in the next day or two. More on that below, but let's look at the
issue lists first. As you remember, the issue descriptions can be
accessed from:

   http://www.piuha.net./~jarkko/publications/mipv6/MIPv6-Issues.html

Issues we believe that are closed:

#  Status    Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1  Adopted   Suboptions on HAO
2  Adopted   NVM rules for replay protection of BUs to the HA
3  Adopted   BA and BR authentication mechanism with a cookie exchange?
4  Adopted   Is BM authentication necessary?
5  Adopted   Alternative-CoA usage rules
6  Adopted   Reuse of nonces while moving fast
7  Adopted   MH formatting issues
9  Adopted   Terminology (option, parameter, RR procedure, ...)
11 Adopted   Should HAO be used in home registrations?
12 Adopted   State machines for CN/MN/HA behaviour
13 Rejected  SPI field necessary? (But see a separate draft)
14 Adopted   Require encryption on HA-MN tunnel for MH messages?
15 Adopted   Site local HoAs and tunnel protection
16 Adopted   Error message to give when receiving unrecognized MH Type
17 Adopted   Editorial suggestions from Robert Chalmers
18 Open      Prefix advertisement acknowledgement problem
19 Adopted   Editorial and technical suggestions from Samita Chakrabarti
20 Adopted   Allow non-RR authorization?
21 Adopted   Cookie lifetimes, one or MIN and a MAX?
23 Rejected  S-bit and link-local address creation</a> (But see issue
24 Adopted   Option Length for PadN
25 Adopted   To use RH or not with BAs
26 Adopted   HOT path when the CN already has a BCE
27 Adopted   Should HAO be used in BUs to CNs?
28 Adopted   BRR effects on routing
29 Adopted   Rate limitation of BE messages
30 Rejected  'S' bit and MN returning home; DAD problems</a> (But see issue
31 Adopted   How to process HAO?
32 Adopted   State machine simplification
33 Adopted   BE and lack of home address
34 Rejected  CoA test also for home registrations?
35 Adopted   Hesham Soliman's comments
37 Adopted   DAD rule in 10.2 for link-local only?
38 Adopted   Is the 'S' bit needed?
39 Adopted   Should the HA defend the link local address of the MN?
40 Adopted   Krishna Kumar's technical comments
41 Adopted   Krishna Kumar's editorial comments
42 Adopted   {Min,Max}RtrAdvInterval
43 Adopted   Is Refresh useful?
44 Adopted   Finding HA's link-layer address
45 Adopted   HAO keyword same as for RO or MUST?
46 Adopted   Compress Status code values for BA?
47 Adopted   Cookie explanation editorial
49 Adopted   New home addresses and SAs

Issues we believe are still open:

#  Status    Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
8  Open      Bidding down protection
10 Open      ESP or AH for home registrations
22 Open      Route optimization SHOULD or MUST for CNs?
36 Open      Prefix sol/adv security
48 Open      DAD and forwarding from a previous care-of address on the same link
50 Open      Lifetime issue from Hesham Soliman's comments

In addition we have a few issues that have only been discussed outside the list:

#  Status    Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
x1 Open      Describe SPD entries to show how IPsec is used between HA-MN
x2 Open      Whether to mandate deregistration after coa becomes invalid
x3 Open      Add section references to all 8.x items and remove repetition?
x4 Open      Reserved field compression for MH messages
x5 Open      Can 16 bit mobile cookies be accepted to save 8 bytes in HOTI, COTI?
x6 Open      Can home and care-of cookies shortened to 96 bits or even shorter?

Here's how we intend to deal with the open issues:

8            An ongoing security review is expected to provide information
              on whether this is needed or not. Draft 18 will not have it.
              Separate drafts have been published on this.

10           A proposal will be sent to the mailing list soon.

22           The MIPv6 draft will have only text to describe what
              MUST/SHOULD/MAY be implemented to support cn functionality,
              route optimization, ha functionality, mn functionality. Node
              requirements document currently being developed in ipv6 wg
              will specify a keyword for these groups of functionality.

36           Discussion ongoing.

48           A proposal will be sent to the mailing list soon.

50           Hesham's issues have been otherwise resolved, but
              we didn't find consensus on what to do with the
              lifetimes of RR-established BCEs. We do know

x1           Text is being written. This will be posted to the
              list. At that point we can consider what, if anything
              of this should go as clarifying text to the spec.

x2           A proposal will be sent to the list soon.

x3           It might be clearer to make the 8.x section lists
              to just refer to the rest of the document, and say
              what MUST/SHOULD/MAY be provided. Proposed text will
              be sent soon.

x4           Being edited in.

x5           Being considered.

x6           Being considered.