Re: [Mipshop] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-mipshop-cga-cba-01.txt

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

Hi James,

many thanks for reviewing the document.  One, or rather a couple of
protocol diagrams should indeed be added to section 4.  This would also
further clarify the difference between the two authentication methods
(with or without CGA-based HoA), as well as the difference between using
an initial early Binding Update message (without CoA verification) or
not using it.

Regards,
- Christian

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



James Kempf wrote:
> I briefly reviewed this draft. I think it looks fine, however, I found the 
> mass of text in Section 4 somewhat difficult to follow in the absence of a 
> protocol "ladder" diagram showing what messages go where and when. I believe 
> readability would be improved by such a diagram.
> 
>             jak 


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