Re: secdir review of draft-ietf-hip-mm-04.txt

[Christian Vogt <chvogt at tm.uka.de>]

Hi Thomas,

I am fine with your suggestions.  Just the following nit:

> > Are locator types critical?  What happens when a host tries to add or
> > move to a locator which is not supported by its peer?
>
> I agree with your point that it is probably useful to define some error
>  behavior to distinguish between unsupported Locator Types and dropped 
> packets.
>
> There is a HIP NOTIFY mechanism defined in the base spec which could be
>  reused for this purpose.  I would suggest that we define a new Notify 
> Message Type in the range 31-50 for "LOCATOR_TYPE_UNSUPPORTED", with
> the Notification Data field containing the Locator(s) that the receiver
> failed to process.
>
> The following rules seem appropriate: 
> - a HIP host SHOULD send a NOTIFY error if an unsupported Locator
> Type is received in a LOCATOR parameter, when such Locator
> is also declared to be the Preferred locator for the peer 
> - otherwise, a HIP host MAY send a NOTIFY error if
> an unsupported Locator Type is received in a LOCATOR parameter

Shouldn't the transmission of the NOTIFY be a "MUST" in the special case 
where the LOCATOR parameter contains /only/ locators of unsupported type? 
 The preferred locator would in this case remain the same as before, 
meaning that it would be in DEPRECATED status.

Best,
- Christian

--
Christian Vogt, Institute of Telematics, Universitaet Karlsruhe (TH)
www.tm.uka.de/~chvogt/pubkey/



_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf