Subject: [mobile-ip] Registration Revocation: IANA Considerations section

From: "Steven M. Glass" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 20:05:48 -0500

Fellow WG members,

     Submitted for your peer-review is this draft of the IANA 
considerations section to be added to 
draft-ietf-mobileip-reg-revok-05.txt as part of IETF last call.  Please 
respond with any comments to myself, and of-course the alais.

                               Cheers,
                                   Steve

     IANA Considerations

     This document defines an additional set of messages between the 
home and foreign agent specific to the services being provided to the 
same mobile node, or sub-set of mobile nodes.  To ensure correct 
interoperation based on this specification, IANA must reserve values in 
the mobile-ip number space for two new message types, and a single new 
extension value.

     New Message Types:

     Registration Revocation:  A new Mobile-IP control message, using 
UDP port 434, the value for which needs to be taken from the same 
number space as Mobile-IP Registration Request (Type = 1), and 
Mobile-IP Registration Reply (Type = 3).

     Registration Revocation Acknowledgment: A new Mobile-IP control 
message, using UDP port 434, the value for which needs to be taken from 
the same number space as Mobile-IP Registration Request (Type = 1), and 
Mobile-IP Registration Reply (Type = 3).

     New Extension Values:

     Revocation Extension:  A Mobile-IP Extension, appended to a 
Registration Request, or Registration Reply.  The value should be 
derived from the extension number space, and MUST be in the 'skippable' 
(128 - 255) range as defined in RFC3344.

     Prefix Length Extension: this extension has already been defined in 
RFC3344, but is defined there as only being included in ICMP router 
advertisements, and has been given a value of 19.  This document 
extends it's use in that it MAY appear in a Registration Revocation 
message.  In doing this, it already appears in the 'non-skippable' 
range as defined by RFC3344, which is the correct context for its use 
in Registration Revocation.

     New Error Codes:

     There are no new Mobile-IP error codes introduced by this document.

<fin>

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 19:34:30 +0100

Steven,

	My major comment is of course related to the idea expressed in
my last call comments on the main part of the draft, that it would be
wise
to define the registration revocation and revocation ack in terms of
notification and ack messages, and a registration revocation extension,
rather than making the messages themselves be specific to reg.
revocation.

	There's a few other comments inline, below.

	Comments on your responses to my last call comments coming up
shortly.

	Regards,
		Henrik

On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 20:05:48 -0500, "Steven M. Glass"
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> interoperation based on this specification, IANA must reserve values
> in the mobile-ip number space for two new message types, and a single
> new extension value.

Actually, I'd say you're defining two new extension values in the number
space of extensions which may appear in Mobile IP control messages; the
revocation (setup) extension and the prefix-length extension.

> Mobile-IP Registration Reply (Type = 3).

Is it really needful to explicitly mention the request and reply
messages?
Should be enough to specify that it's a new Mobile IP control message.

> message, using UDP port 434, the value for which needs to be taken
> from the same number space as Mobile-IP Registration Request (Type =
> 1), and Mobile-IP Registration Reply (Type = 3).
> 

Ditto.

> derived from the extension number space, and MUST be in the
> 'skippable' (128 - 255) range as defined in RFC3344.

To avoid misunderstandings in the future, could we call this a
Revocation Setup Extension, to make it clear that it is
not used for the revocation itself?
 
> in Registration Revocation.

I still wonder if it wouldn't be wiser to define this as a revocation-
specific prefix length extension, but I'm not adamant about it.