Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] MIPv6: Binding Authorization Data - type thereof

From: "Greg O'Shea" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 22:25:25 +0100

"type field or similar" = "options and/or flags"

Sounds okay to me.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jari Arkko [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>Sent: 18 October 2002 19:54
>To: Greg O'Shea
>Cc: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [mobile-ip] MIPv6: Binding Authorization Data - 
>type thereof
>
>
>Greg O'Shea wrote:
>> "Rules for calculating this value depend on the used
>>    authorization procedure.  This specification gives the 
>rules only for
>>    the return routability procedure." [6.2.6]
>> 
>> Then there had better be a type field or similar in the BU 
>in order to
>> identify which authorization procedure the sender has used.
>
>There isn't, but the current specification describes only one 
>approach. Future specifications, if any, that introduce new 
>approaches must specify how (a) they can distinguish that the 
>new approach is being used and (b) how they ensure that the 
>peer doesn't think rr is in use.
>
>This appears easy, however. For instance, if we were to 
>introduce CGA extension we could add mobility options and/or 
>flags in the HoTI and CoTI messages to carry the additional 
>data related to this method. A CN which doesn't support these 
>mobility options would ignore the options and return a regular 
>HoT / CoT. A CN which supports the new method would return the 
>necessary options. At this point the MN would be aware of the 
>support on the other side. When sending the BU, the MN would 
>include options and/or flags which would tell the CN what to do.
>
>Jari
>
>