Subject: [mobile-ip] conflict between sending BA in section 9.4.1 and 9.4.4 ?

From: Frédéric Roudaut <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 11:50:43 +0200

In Section 9.4.1 it is written:
----------------------------
"... Any Binding Update which fails to satisfy all of these tests for 
any reason other than insufficiency
of the Sequence Number or Nonce Indices MUST be silently ignored, and 
the packet carrying the Binding
Update MUST be discarded."

Whereas in section 9.4.4 we can see:
-------------------------------------
"If the node rejects the Binding Update and does not create or update an 
entry for this binding,
a Binding Acknowledgement MUST be sent even if the `A' bit was not set, 
and the Status field
in the Binding Acknowledgement MUST be set to a value greater than or 
equal to 128."

So I think there is a contradiction between these two extracts. Moreover 
I think that Section 9.4.1 is in contradiction with section 6.1.8 which 
define different status values to use for the binding acknowledgment 
message when the correspondent node rejects the binding update. Or maybe 
I misunderstood something ...
Best regards,

-- 
Frédéric ROUDAUT
IRISA-INRIA, Campus de Beaulieu, 35042 Rennes cedex, France
Tél: +33 (0) 2 99 84 71 44, Fax: +33 (0) 2 99 84 71 71

---

From: Brian Haley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 11:28:12 -0400

> In Section 9.4.1 it is written:

Hi Frederic,

There are minimum requirements for for Binding Updates without which
we can't really process them - no HAO, invalid MH length, incorrect or
missing Auth Data, etc - we silently drop these packets.  Once it passes the
initial checks, we start processing the BU and must respond to the MN
accordingly.

-Brian

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 18:56:12 +0300

> In Section 9.4.1 it is written:

Ah, yes. The intention was of course that the first 9.4.1 processing is
performed (and possibly the whole BU silently discarded). Then, if it
is accepted me might still answer with different status codes. But the
text is not very clear on this. My proposal is to change the text in
the first paragraph of 9.4.4 to the following:

    A Binding Acknowledgement may be sent to indicate receipt of a
    Binding Update as follows:

    - If the Binding Update was silently discarded as described
      in Section 9.4.1, a Binding Acknowledgement MUST NOT be
      sent.

    - Otherwise, if the Acknowledge (A) bit set is set in the
      Binding Update, a Binding Acknowledgement MUST be sent.

    - Otherwise, if the node accepts the Binding Update, a
      Binding Acknowledgement SHOULD NOT be sent.

    - Otherwise the node rejects the Binding Update and
      a Binding Acknowledgement MUST be sent regardless of the
      value of the Acknowledge (A) bit.

    If the node accepts the Binding Update and creates or
    updates an entry for this binding, the Status field in
    the Binding Acknowledgement MUST be set to a value less
    than 128. Otherwise, the Status field MUST be set
    to a value greater than or equal to 128. Values for
    the Status field are described in Section 6.1.8 and
    in the IANA registry of assigned numbers [18].

> message when the correspondent node rejects the binding update.

The status values have already been aligned previously (issues
#58, #91).

Jari