RE: [Mip6] WG LC (Deadline Dec 18th, 04) for I-Ds: draft-ietf-mip6-auth-protocol-01.txt anddraft-ietf-mip6-mn-ident-option-00.txt

Francis -

The specific case is described in an appendix (B in the version you have).
It is
In appendix A (in version that will be submitted shortly).

-a 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mip6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mip6-bounces@ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Francis Dupont
> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 7:08 AM
> To: Vijay Devarapalli
> Cc: mip6@ietf.org; Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com
> Subject: Re: [Mip6] WG LC (Deadline Dec 18th,04) for I-Ds: 
> draft-ietf-mip6-auth-protocol-01.txt 
> anddraft-ietf-mip6-mn-ident-option-00.txt 
> 
>  In your previous mail you wrote:
> 
>    >  - 6 message indent: anti-replay is important, IMHO at 
> least SHOULD is
>    >    required.
>    
>    in most cases, the sequence number in the Binding Update is
>    enough for replay protection when the authentication option
>    protocol is used. if in a particular deployment, (which uses
>    the authentication option protocol), the sequence number is
>    not sufficient, the message identification option should be
>    used. that why it is a MAY in the document.
>    
> => I have no concern to get the function from the "deployment 
> environment" but in this case the constraints for the 
> "deployment environment" must be explicited (currently we can 
> only assume that the "deployment environment" provides 
> authentication and authorization). Note it is possible the 
> "deployment environment"
> needs the sequence number...
> 
> Regards
> 
> Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mip6 mailing list
> Mip6@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6
> 

_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
Mip6@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6