[Mip6] Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-mip6-ikev2-ipsec-07.txt

[Vijay Devarapalli <vijay.devarapalli at azairenet.com>]

hi,

thanks for the review. responses inline.

Vijay K. Gurbani wrote:
> 1) In S4, the authors state that "Many of the requirements are repeated
>  from RFC3776 to make this document self-contained and complete."
>  There are a fair number of requirements in subsequent sub-sections.
>  It may help if the authors tag each requirement that was already
>  present in RFC3776, so the reader can see which new requirement was
>  generated by this draft.

we would like to keep this document self-contained,
basically one needn't refer to RFC 3776 at all to
implement this spec. the very initial versions of
the document were written with only the new
requirements listed, but folks didn't like it.

> 2) Nit: S6.1, under heading "mobile node SPD-S:"
>    s/=BU/= BU/

fixed.

> 3) In S9, first full paragraph of Page 22: "In case the home agent ...
>  an INTERNAL_ADDRESS_FAILURE message."  If a mobile node gets an
>  INTERNAL_ADDRESS_FAILURE message, does it make sense to specify
>  what should it do, if anything?

good catch. the mobile node has the following
options.

1. it can attempt to auto-configure a home address
as described in section 5.3.2 of
draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-split-03.txt. the
sequence is a bit complicated though. it has to
terminate the current IKE exchange and initiate a
new one. in the new IKE_AUTH exchange, the MN
should try to auto-configure a home address.
2. switch to another home agent (most home agent
discovery mechanisms return more than one home
agent).
3. throw an exception and report and error to the
user.

2) seems to be simplest option.

comments?

Vijay

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