Re: [MEXT] Clarifications required on BRI sequence number[draft-muhanna-mext-binding-revocation-02]

"Ahmad Muhanna" <amuhanna@nortel.com> Fri, 30 January 2009 07:35 UTC

Return-Path: <mext-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: mip6-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-mip6-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A470C3A6A93; Thu, 29 Jan 2009 23:35:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 698E93A6A64 for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Jan 2009 23:35:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.505
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.505 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.093, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id twOpnwBB7-QC for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Jan 2009 23:35:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zcars04e.nortel.com (zcars04e.nortel.com [47.129.242.56]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56CC93A68CF for <mext@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Jan 2009 23:35:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zrc2hxm0.corp.nortel.com (zrc2hxm0.corp.nortel.com [47.103.123.71]) by zcars04e.nortel.com (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id n0U7V7D27390; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 07:31:08 GMT
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 01:33:21 -0600
Message-ID: <C5A96676FCD00745B64AE42D5FCC9B6E1CE219CE@zrc2hxm0.corp.nortel.com>
In-Reply-To: <006801c98292$3ba47700$3a8b4d0a@cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [MEXT] Clarifications required on BRI sequence number[draft-muhanna-mext-binding-revocation-02]
Thread-Index: AcmCkjqnQIi09wzwReueGggZwiVXxwAGlFxg
References: <006801c98292$3ba47700$3a8b4d0a@cisco.com>
From: "Ahmad Muhanna" <amuhanna@nortel.com>
To: "Kowsalya Subramanian" <kowsalya@cisco.com>, <mext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MEXT] Clarifications required on BRI sequence number[draft-muhanna-mext-binding-revocation-02]
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1051829577=="
Sender: mext-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org



________________________________

	From: mext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Kowsalya Subramanian
	Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 10:22 PM
	To: mext@ietf.org
	Subject: [MEXT] Clarifications required on BRI sequence
number[draft-muhanna-mext-binding-revocation-02]
	
	
	Hi,
	 
	In the draft, there is text mentioning that the initiator of the
BRI message MUST choose a monotonically increasing sequence number.  
	 
	[Ahmad]
	Where are you reading from. Please refer to the latest MEXT wg
draft at the below link:
	
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mext-binding-revocation-0
3.txt 
	 
	 
	 
	Lets consider a case where the BCE has 3 HNPs bound to it. If
the LMA sends a BRI with seq number 5 for {MN-ID, HNP1} and then wants
to send a BRI for {MN-ID, HNP2}. Should it wait till it gets a BRA for
the previous BRI that it sent? If LMA need not wait for the BRA, then it
is possible that MAG receives BRI 5, 6 out of order. In which case, what
should the MAG do, should it ignore BRI 5 as it has already got BRI 6.
	 
	In other words, is the sequence number in BRI indicates some
form of versioning for the deletion or is it just to match only BRA and
identify BRI re-transmissions. If it is the latter, why should it be
monotonically increasing, it can just be unique.
	 
	Am I missing something here?
	 
	Thanks
	Kowsalya

_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
MEXT@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext