Re: [MEXT] comment on draft-ietf-binding-revocation-01

["Ahmad Muhanna" <amuhanna at nortel.com>]

Hi Domagoj,

I agree. Let us wait and see what other folks think of this. 
If there is no objection, then we can add the clarification text and the
new field in the MN BCE at the LMA.

Thanks!

Regards,
Ahmad
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Premec, Domagoj [mailto:domagoj.premec at siemens.com] 
> Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 8:14 AM
> To: Muhanna, Ahmad (RICH1:2H10)
> Cc: Netlmm
> Subject: RE: comment on draft-ietf-binding-revocation-01
> 
> Ahmad,
> 
> IMO sending the Binding revocation to the source IP of the 
> PBU is the right way to go and I'd like to see this 
> documented in the draft. Though this will require the 
> extension of the BCE structure as the LMA will need to save 
> both the source IP of the PBU and the alt-CoA.
> 
> domagoj
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ahmad Muhanna [mailto:amuhanna at nortel.com]
> > Sent: 10. listopad 2008 15:03
> > To: Premec, Domagoj
> > Cc: Netlmm
> > Subject: RE: comment on draft-ietf-netlmm-grekey-option-01
> > 
> > Hi Domagoj,
> > 
> > I believe this is a valid concern. I guess either way 
> should work, but 
> > I believe the cleaner solution is to have some text to 
> indicate that 
> > if the alt-CoA included in the PBU, the revocation should 
> be sent to 
> > the same address the PBA is sent to. In this case the source of the 
> > PBU.
> > 
> > If people feels that is the best approach, we can add some 
> > clarification to the draft.
> > 
> > What do you think?
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Ahmad
> >  
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Premec, Domagoj [mailto:domagoj.premec at siemens.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 7:59 AM
> > > To: Muhanna, Ahmad (RICH1:2H10)
> > > Cc: Netlmm
> > > Subject: comment on draft-ietf-netlmm-grekey-option-01
> > > 
> > > Hi Ahmad,
> > > 
> > > I have a comment on the interactions between the binding 
> revocation 
> > > mechanism and the alt-CoA usage as specified in RFC 5213.
> > According to
> > > the RFC 5213, the MAG is allowed to use the alt-CoA to 
> redirect the 
> > > downlink traffic to an address different from the source 
> address of 
> > > the PBU. In this case the Binding revocation will get sent to the 
> > > alt-CoA address, but I think it should actually be sent to
> > the source
> > > address of the PBU, as this is where the signalling part of
> > the MAG is
> > > located. Is this is a valid concern or should we assume
> > that the MAG
> > > also accepts signalling messages at the alt-CoA?
> > > 
> > > domagoj
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
MEXT at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext