Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] RFC3012bis - Comments from ADs (Protocol related) (ISSUE 11)

From: "Jayshree Bharatia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 14:09:40 -0500

I am not sure whether draft is implying anywhere that the Registration Reply
received from the HA should be rejected since it doesn't include the
Challenge extension. This is a separate case from the one in which a
Challenge is received with a different Challenge value than the one sent to
the HA in Registration Request.
 
As per section 3.4, the HA sends Registration Reply to the FA without
Challenge extension in it even if it doesn't recognize the Challenge
extension. Section 3.3 mentions that the FA should include a new challenge
extension in any Registration Reply, successful or not. My understanding
from reading this text is that the FA is not rejecting Registration Reply
Hence the original comment from AD may not be applicable.
 
Any Comment?
 
Thanks,
Jayshree

-----Original Message-----
From: Muhanna, Ahmad [RICH2:2Q20:EXCH] 
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 10:53 AM
To: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] RFC3012bis - Comments from ADs (Protocol related)
(ISSUE 11)

please see comments inline. 

Regards; 
Ahmad Muhanna 

Non-editorial comments associated with RFC3012bis: 

Please post your comments with the appropriate issue number in the subject
line (instead of simply replying to this email).

-Chairs. 

11.    Since the extension type for the Challenge extension is within the 
   range 128-255, the Home Agent MUST process such a Registration 
   Request even if it does not recognize the Challenge extension [7]. 
   In this case, the Home Agent will send a Registration Reply to the 
   Foreign Agent that does not include the Challenge extension. 

   I fail to see the utility of sending a reply back without a challenge 
   since the FA is required to reject the reply. 

The same argument of ISSUE 8 & 9 can be made here too. 

Regards, 
Ahmad