Re: [AAA-DOCTORS] New version of draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integrated

[jouni korhonen <[e-mail]>]

Hi Pasi, all,

According to my notes we have now converged to a common understanding  
on this I-D. I have prepared an update of the I-D that includes all  
comments. See the following link for the diff (PDF) that summarizes  
changes since the -10 that was submitted to the IESG: http://www.tschofenig.priv.at/svn/draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integrated/dime-mip6-integrated-10-to-12-diff.pdf

Does this revision match others' idea of the agreed on changes?

Cheers,
	Jouni


On Dec 18, 2008, at 7:41 PM, <[e-mail]> <[e-mail] 
 > wrote:

> Jouni Korhonen wrote:
>
>>> Looking back at the emails, the following things (not related to
>>> this RADIUS/Diameter topic) were still not handled in the
>>> -11 version:
>>>
>>> - Describing the semantics of the MIP6-Home-Link-Prefix in request
>>> messages.
>>
>> Would the following text in Section 4.2.4 work for you?
>>
>> Old:
>>
>>    The HAAA MAY act as a central entity managing prefixes for MNs.
>>    In this case, the HAAA returns the prefix allocated for the MN
>>    and returns it the NAS.  The NAS/ASP uses then, for example,
>>    mechanisms described in
>>    [I-D.ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-integrated-dhc] to deliver the home
>>    link prefix to the MN.
>>
>> New:
>>
>>    The HAAA MAY act as a central entity managing prefixes for MNs.
>>    In this case, the HAAA returns the prefix allocated for the MN
>>    and returns it the NAS.  The NAS/ASP uses then, for example,
>>    mechanisms described in
>>    [I-D.ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-integrated-dhc] to deliver the home
>>    link prefix to the MN. The NAS/ASP MAY propose a specific prefix
>>    allocation to the HAAA by including the MIP6-Home-Link-Prefix
>>    AVP in the request message. However, the HAAA is MAY override
>>    the prefix allocation hint proposed by the NAS/AAA and return a
>>    different prefix in the response message.
>
> Both this and Lionel's slightly edited version look OK to me.
>
>>> - If the message contains information about multiple HAs, which home
>>> agent(s) the prefix(es) in MIP6-Home-Link-Prefix AVP(s) belong to.
>>> (One way to solve this would be to move it inside the Grouped AVP;
>>> another way would be to prohibit its use if the message contains
>>> multiple HAs; other solutions may be possible)
>>
>> Actually, I have a vague recollection that independent of number of
>> the HAs, there would be only one prefix. I cannot find anything to
>> back up this now, though.
>>
>> Thus, we could move the MIP6-Home-Link-Prefix AVP inside the MIP6-
>> Agent-Info AVP (in that case, we could actually consider using the
>> Framed-IPv6- Prefix AVP instead of the MIP6-Home-Link-Prefix
>> AVP). Or we could add text that says using the MIP6-Home-Link-Prefix
>> AVP when there are multiple HAs does not make much sense.
>
> I slightly prefer moving it inside the grouped AVP.
>
> Best regards,
> Pasi
> _______________________________________________
> AAA-DOCTORS mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aaa-doctors

_______________________________________________
AAA-DOCTORS mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aaa-doctors