RE: [Mip6] Comments on mip6-mn-ident-option-00.txt

Charlie -

Please see inline for comments: 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mip6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mip6-bounces@ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Charles E.Perkins
> Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 3:58 PM
> To: Alpesh Patel; Mobile IPv6 Mailing List
> Subject: [Mip6] Comments on mip6-mn-ident-option-00.txt
> 
> 
> Hello Alpesh,
> 
> Here are some comments on the draft.
> 
> - In section 3.2, there is reference to
>   "any authentication enabling extension".
>   No such thing is defined for Mobile IPv6.

This has been fixed in current doc (01). How about a bit modification like:

"When used together with authentication option [1], this option MUST appear
before the authentication options defined in [1]."

> 
> - I don't believe that there is any need to
>   carry the option in Binding Acknowledgements.
>   This should be a "MAY", not a "MUST".
>   The sequence number is supposed to be enough
>   to match updates with acknowledgements.

This has been fixed in the draft on the WG page.

> 
> - section 4: Any new scheme for identifying
>   a network entity introduces new security
>   threats.  The extent of the threat can be
>   estimated only when the methods for associating
>   the identifier to the device itself are known.
>   In the case of Mobile IPv6, there is also the
>   need to securely associate the identifier with
>   the IP address of the device.  Furthermore,
>   when the identifier is going to be used as
>   a way to index a security association, my
>   guess is that the current inflexibility of
>   IPsec will cause either a redefinition or
>   some greater pain to be suffered when trying
>   to use IPsec algorithms indexed on something
>   besides IP addresses.

Can you provide text here?

> 
> - section 5:  my understanding is that one has
>   to specify just how the new option subtypes
>   are going to specified, allocated, and approved.

The version on WG page adds a line in IANA considerations section in this
regards.

> 
> Editorial:
> 
> - In section 1. 2nd paragraph, "identify"
>   should be "identifies"

Fixed now.

> 
> - Section 5, last paragraph: should "value"
>   be pluralized?
> 
Has been fixed in the version on WG page.

> - Use either "subtype" or "sub-type", but not
>   both.

Fixed. 

Also, the name of the draft has changed - please look at:

 MN Identifier Option for Mobile IPv6  (14146 bytes) linked to:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mip6-mn-ident-option-01.txt

Thx
-a

> 
> Regards, and happy new year!
> Charlie P.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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