Re: [MEXT] Comments on draft-ietf-mext-binding-revocation-02

["Stupar, Patrick" <pstupar at qualcomm.com>]

Hi Ahmad,

I don't think that the "MODIFIED" text you proposed is wrong, I think
that part of it is redundant and already covered. If you think that your
proposal is more suitable I can live with that. Some additional comments
below.

Regards,

Patrick 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ahmad Muhanna [mailto:amuhanna at nortel.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 12:23 AM
> To: Stupar, Patrick
> Cc: mext at ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Comments on draft-ietf-mext-binding-revocation-02
> 
> Hi Patrick,
> 
> As I said, your proposed text for the second bullet was not clear to
> me.
> On the other hand, the first bullet specify what happened if any of
the
> two checks fail, i.e. if the received BRI does not have an entry in
its
> BUL.
> 
> The second bullet specify what happened if these two checks were
> successful. There is nothing wrong in being explicit and clear without
> any ambiguity. Finally, how come your question is valid against the
> clarified text and NOT against yours?
> 
> Can I say that you have a problem with the following text: Can you
> specify what is wrong in it?
> 
>    o  If the Acknowledgement (A) bit is set in the Binding Revocation
>       Indication and its Binding Update List contains an entry for the
>       IP address in the type 2 routing header, the mobile node MUST
>       send a Binding Revocation Acknowledgement.

You added the sentence "and its Binding Update List contains an entry
for the IP address in the type 2 routing header": this is already
described in the previous bullet, that's why I had the comment against
your modified text and not mine. But as I said before, it's not wrong
but only redundant.

> 
> 
> Regards,
> Ahmad
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stupar, Patrick [mailto:pstupar at qualcomm.com]
> > Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 8:00 PM
> > To: Muhanna, Ahmad (RICH1:2H10)
> > Cc: mext at ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: Comments on draft-ietf-mext-binding-revocation-02
> >
> > Hi Ahmad,
> >
> > Please see below.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Patrick
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Ahmad Muhanna [mailto:amuhanna at nortel.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 7:51 PM
> > > To: Stupar, Patrick
> > > Cc: mext at ietf.org
> > > Subject: RE: Comments on draft-ietf-mext-binding-revocation-02
> > >
> > > Hi Patrick,
> > > Thanks. One slight modification below.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Ahmad
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Stupar, Patrick [mailto:pstupar at qualcomm.com]
> > > > Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 11:18 AM
> > > > To: Muhanna, Ahmad (RICH1:2H10)
> > > > Cc: mext at ietf.org
> > > > Subject: RE: Comments on draft-ietf-mext-binding-revocation-02
> > > > >
> > > > > [Ahmad]
> > > > > I see what you are saying. I assumed that this is in the
> > > > form of NAI.
> > > > > we
> > > > > can add some text to clarify that, would that address your
> > > > concern or
> > > > > you have in mind a possible different format?
> > > >
> > > > I think this would be good. Either a definition in section
> > > > 2.2 or a clarification in the text would be fine with me.
> > >
> > > [Ahmad]
> > > Sure.
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [Ahmad]
> > > > > Currently, neither the HoA nor the CoA is included in the
> > > > BRI message.
> > > > > Are you suggesting that we add those options as valid ones
> > > > in the BRI?
> > > >
> > > > No I am not. What I meant here is that HoA is in the
> > routing header
> > > > of the packet containing the BRI. Checking of HoA would be
enough
> > > > IMO. It could be moved to the previous bullet of the list
> > as in the
> > > > following proposed text:
> > > > OLD TEXT:
> > > > "
> > > >    o  The mobile node MUST verify that the IP address in
> > the type 2
> > > >       routing header is its Home Address.
> > > >
> > > >    o  If the Acknowledgement (A) bit is set in the Binding
> > Revocation
> > > >       Indication and the MN has the BCE in registered state, the
> > > > mobile
> > > >       node MUST send a Binding Revocation Acknowledgement.
> > > > However, in
> > > >       all other cases when the (A) bit is set in the BRI,
> > the mobile
> > > >       node SHOULD send a Binding Revocation
> > Acknowledgement.  In all
> > > >       cases, the mobile node MUST follow Section 11.2 when send
a
> > BRA
> > > >       using the appropriate status code.
> > > > "
> > > > NEW TEXT
> > > > "
> > > >    o  The mobile node MUST verify that the IP address in
> > the type 2
> > > >       routing header is its Home Address and that its
> > Binding Update
> > > > 	List contains an entry for that Home Address. If one of
> > the tests
> > > > fails,
> > > > 	the mobile node SHOULD silently discard the received BRI
> > > >       message.
> > > >
> > > >    o  If the Acknowledgement (A) bit is set in the Binding
> > Revocation
> > > >       Indication, the mobile
> > > >       node MUST send a Binding Revocation Acknowledgement.
> > > > However, in
> > > >       all other cases when the (A) bit is set in the BRI,
> > the mobile
> > > >       node SHOULD send a Binding Revocation
> > Acknowledgement.  In all
> > > >       cases, the mobile node MUST follow Section 11.2 when send
a
> > BRA
> > > >       using the appropriate status code.
> > > > "
> > >
> > > [Ahmad]
> > > I am not sure I follow the second bullet of the "NEW TEXT".
> > What about
> > > the following modified text:
> > >
> > > "MODIFIED TEXT"
> > >
> > >    o  The mobile node MUST verify that the IP address in the type
2
> > >       routing header is its Home Address and that its Binding
> Update
> > > 	List contains an entry for that Home Address. If one of
> > the tests,
> > > 	fails the mobile node SHOULD silently discard the received BRI
> > >       message.
> > >
> > >    o  If the Acknowledgement (A) bit is set in the Binding
> > Revocation
> > >       Indication and its Binding Update List contains an
> > entry for the
> > >       IP address in the type 2 routing header, the mobile node
MUST
> > >       send a Binding Revocation Acknowledgement.  However, in
> > >       all other cases when the (A) bit is set in the BRI, the
> mobile
> > >       node SHOULD send a Binding Revocation Acknowledgement.  In
> all
> > >       cases, the mobile node MUST follow Section 11.2 when
> > send a BRA
> > >       using the appropriate status code.
> > >
> > [Patrick]
> > The actions in the first bullet apply to any received BRI
> > (also to those with the A bit set). Having said that, in the
> > second bullet it is only required  to specify the additional
> > operation (i.e. sending a BRA) the MN has to perform when the
> > A bit is set. IMO the text you added is redundant and not
> > required. Do you have some particular scenario I am missing?
> >
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > Please note that the proposed text overlaps with the last bullet
> > > > listed in section 11.2. I would remove that as in the
> > > > following:
> > > >
> > > > Old text:
> > > > "11.2.  Sending Binding Revocation Acknowledgement
> > > >
> > > >    When the mobile node receive a valid Binding Revocation
> > Indication
> > > >    with the (A) bit is set from its home agent and while
> > having this
> > > > BCE
> > > >    in registered state, the mobile node MUST send a packet to
its
> > > home
> > > >    agent containing a Binding Revocation Acknowledgement
> according
> > to
> > > >    the procedure in Section 7.1 and the following:
> > > >
> > > >    o  The mobile node MUST set the status field to successful to
> > > > reflect
> > > >       that it has received the Binding Revocation Indication and
> > > >       acknowledge that its IP connectivity with its home
> > agent has
> > > > been
> > > >       revoked.
> > > >
> > > >    o  The destination IP address of the IPv6 packet of the
> Binding
> > > >       Revocation Acknowledgement is set to the source IP
> > address of
> > > > the
> > > >       received IPv6 packet of the Binding Revocation Indication.
> > The
> > > >       Mobile Node MUST include its home address in the
> > Home Address
> > > >       option in the Destination Option.
> > > >
> > > >    o  If the mobile node receives a Binding Revocation
Indication
> > > > from a
> > > >       home agent which the mobile node does not have a
registered
> > > >       binding with, the mobile node SHOULD silently
> > discard the BRI
> > > >       message.  The mobile node should continue to use
> > its assigned
> > > > HoA
> > > >       to access its IP mobility service."
> > > >
> > > > New text:
> > > > "11.2.  Sending Binding Revocation Acknowledgement
> > > >
> > > >    When the mobile node receive a valid Binding Revocation
> > Indication
> > > >    with the (A) bit is set from its home agent and while
> > having this
> > > > BCE
> > > >    in registered state, the mobile node MUST send a packet to
its
> > > home
> > > >    agent containing a Binding Revocation Acknowledgement
> according
> > to
> > > >    the procedure in Section 7.1 and the following:
> > > >
> > > >    o  The mobile node MUST set the status field to successful to
> > > > reflect
> > > >       that it has received the Binding Revocation Indication and
> > > >       acknowledge that its IP connectivity with its home
> > agent has
> > > > been
> > > >       revoked.
> > > >
> > > >    o  The destination IP address of the IPv6 packet of the
> Binding
> > > >       Revocation Acknowledgement is set to the source IP
> > address of
> > > > the
> > > >       received IPv6 packet of the Binding Revocation Indication.
> > The
> > > >       Mobile Node MUST include its home address in the
> > Home Address
> > > >       option in the Destination Option."
> > >
> > > [Ahmad]
> > > Sure. That is fair and good.
> > >
> > > Best Regards,
> > > Ahmad
> >
_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
MEXT at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext