RE: [Mip6] Comments for draft-ietf-mip6-rfc4285bis-00.txt
"Chowdhury, Kuntal" <kchowdhury@starentnetworks.com> Wed, 03 October 2007 02:24 UTC
Return-path: <mip6-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ictv1-00005H-NB; Tue, 02 Oct 2007 22:24:59 -0400
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ictuz-0008VU-VH for mip6@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Oct 2007 22:24:58 -0400
Received: from mx0.starentnetworks.com ([12.38.223.203]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ictuu-0007v7-9G for mip6@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Oct 2007 22:24:52 -0400
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mx0.starentnetworks.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88DA5A81E9 for <mip6@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Oct 2007 22:24:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mx0.starentnetworks.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx0.starentnetworks.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 18264-02 for <mip6@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Oct 2007 22:24:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from exchtewks1.starentnetworks.com (exchtewks1.starentnetworks.com [10.2.4.28]) by mx0.starentnetworks.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for <mip6@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Oct 2007 22:24:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from exchtewks3.starentnetworks.com ([10.2.4.31]) by exchtewks1.starentnetworks.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 2 Oct 2007 22:24:36 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [Mip6] Comments for draft-ietf-mip6-rfc4285bis-00.txt
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 22:24:46 -0400
Message-ID: <4D35478224365146822AE9E3AD4A26663FC543@exchtewks3.starentnetworks.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Mip6] Comments for draft-ietf-mip6-rfc4285bis-00.txt
Thread-Index: Acf+soSwz4JGiI4XRo28tnSCeU+IDwGseqhw
From: "Chowdhury, Kuntal" <kchowdhury@starentnetworks.com>
To: Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Oct 2007 02:24:36.0775 (UTC) FILETIME=[8B0C0B70:01C80564]
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new 2.2.1 (20041222) at mx0.starentnetworks.com
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 48472a944c87678fcfe8db15ffecdfff
Cc: Mobile IPv6 Mailing List <mip6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: mip6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: mip6.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6>, <mailto:mip6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:mip6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mip6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6>, <mailto:mip6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: mip6-bounces@ietf.org
Hi Hannes, Thanks for your valuable comments. We will include your suggested texts in the I-D. BR, Kuntal > -----Original Message----- > From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net] > Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 8:55 AM > To: Chowdhury, Kuntal > Cc: Mobile IPv6 Mailing List > Subject: Re: [Mip6] Comments for draft-ietf-mip6-rfc4285bis-00.txt > > Hi Kuntal, > > I wanted to be a bit more specific about the feedback regarding the > timestamp-based replay protection technique. I believe the following two > paragraphs should make everything clear. > > In Section 5.2 of > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mip6-rfc4285bis-00 you could write: > > " > > When the MN-AAA authentication mobility option is present in a BU the > mobility message replay protection in section 6 option SHOULD be used. > > " > > > At the end of Section 6 of > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mip6-rfc4285bis-00 you should > indicate: > > " > > If the Mobile Node receives a Binding Acknowledgement with the code > MIPV6-ID-MISMATCH, which is a response to a BU containing a MN-AAA > authentication mobility option, and the authentication of the BA > succeeds, the Mobile Node MUST resend the BU including the MN-AAA > authentication mobility option, using the updated timestamp value. > > " > > The text about resynchronization of the timestamp between the MN <-> HA > is already in the draft but the statement regarding the the MN-AAA usage > is missing. > This paragraph would provide that statement. > > Ciao > Hannes > > Hannes Tschofenig wrote: > > Hi Kuntal, > > > > Chowdhury, Kuntal wrote: > >> Hi Hannes, > >> > >> Sorry for the late follow-up on this. Please see inline... > >> > >> -Kuntal > >> > >> > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net] > >>> Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2007 3:13 PM > >>> To: Mobile IPv6 Mailing List > >>> Subject: [Mip6] Comments for draft-ietf-mip6-rfc4285bis-00.txt > >>> > >>> Re-reading draft-ietf-mip6-rfc4285bis-00.txt I noticed a couple of > >>> > >> things. > >> > >>> * The references are out of date > >>> > >>> Example: draft-ietf-mip6-mn-ident-option-03.txt become RFC 4283 in > >>> > >> 2005. > >> [KC>] Fixed. > >> > >> > >>> * RFC 3344 is a normative reference without a reason > >>> > >>> > >> [KC>] will be moved under informative references. > >> > >> > >>> * More RFC 2119 language is needed. When someone reads through the > >>> > >> text > >> > >>> then the places are pretty obvious. I could list them, if someone > >>> > >> cares. > >> [KC>] We will add RFC 2119 in the reference list. The Terminology > >> section already points to RCC 2119. What else is needed? > >> > >> > > I noticed that a couple of MUST, SHOULD and MAYs in the document need > > to be capitalized. > > I can spot them for you, if you want. > > > >>> * Replay Protection: There is no mandatory to implement replay > >>> protection technique. To me it seems that only the timestamp based > >>> replay protection really seems to be usable when used in combination > >>> with the AAA infrastructure. > >>> > >>> > >> [KC>] I am not sure why so. It is true that only timestamp based relay > >> protection scheme is specified in the current version of the I-D, but > >> that should not necessitate use of an AAA infrastructure! > > There are two separate issues regarding replay protection here. First, > > there is the replay protection between the HA and the MN and then > > there is replay protection also needed between MN and AAAS. For the > > latter you have to mandate the usage of timestamp based replay > > protection and resynchronization in order to get a working system. So > > far, only timestamp based replay protection is described for the > > interaction between MN to AAAs (unless you consider the extensions in > > draft-devarapalli-mip6-authprotocol-bootstrap-02.txt). > > > > I can provide the text for you to make it clearer for you what I > > actually mean. > > > > > >> Anyway, please refer to Appendix A (Rationale for mobility message > >> replay protection option) for further details on the reason for > >> selecting timestamp based replay protection mode. > >> > >> > > The appendix is fine with respect to the replay protection between MN > > and HA. > > > > Ciao > > Hannes > > > >>> Ciao > >>> Hannes > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Mip6 mailing list > >>> Mip6@ietf.org > >>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6 > >>> > >> > >> > >> "This email message and any attachments are confidential information > >> of Starent Networks, Corp. The information transmitted may not be > >> used to create or change any contractual obligations of Starent > >> Networks, Corp. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other > >> use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this e-mail and its > >> attachments by persons or entities other than the intended recipient > >> is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify > >> the sender immediately -- by replying to this message or by sending > >> an email to postmaster@starentnetworks.com -- and destroy all copies > >> of this message and any attachments without reading or disclosing > >> their contents. Thank you." > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ Mip6 mailing list Mip6@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6
- [Mip6] Comments for draft-ietf-mip6-rfc4285bis-00… Hannes Tschofenig
- RE: [Mip6] Comments for draft-ietf-mip6-rfc4285bi… Ahmad Muhanna
- RE: [Mip6] Comments for draft-ietf-mip6-rfc4285bi… Chowdhury, Kuntal
- Re: [Mip6] Comments for draft-ietf-mip6-rfc4285bi… Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [Mip6] Comments for draft-ietf-mip6-rfc4285bi… Hannes Tschofenig
- RE: [Mip6] Comments for draft-ietf-mip6-rfc4285bi… Chowdhury, Kuntal