RE: [Mip6] Comments for draft-ietf-mip6-rfc4285bis-00.txt

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 * The references are out of date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?

> * 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! 

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.

> Ciao
> Hannes
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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