[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[netlmm] FW: Comments on draft-ietf-mext-binding-revocation-08



copying the lists.

Regards,
Ahmad


From: Muhanna, Ahmad (RICH1:2H10)
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 1:57 AM
To: Tina TSOU; ops-dir at ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-mext-binding-revocation at tools.ietf.org
Subject: RE: Comments on draft-ietf-mext-binding-revocation-08

Hello Tina,
 
Initially the NEMO case was part of the Binding Revocation presentations that were made in, at least, two IETF meetings. However, based on further discussion on the MEXT/Netlmm mailing lists, the wg failed to find a use for Binding Revocation in the case of NEMO for the following reasons:
 
1. The MNP is allocated via a mechanism other than the BU/BA signaling. In other words, DHCP could be an option. Therefore, the argument was made that there is no justification for the home agent to send a Binding Revocation Indication message in order to revoke a specific MNP.
 
2. On the other hand, at any time the MR would like to revoke a specific MNP binding to its home address, the MR can send a BU with the remaining MNPs that still valid and the home agent will update the MR BCE accordingly. In addition, the MR can send a de-registration to de-register all MNPs is a single message.
 
3. In the case that BU/BA is used for allocating MNP(s) to a specific MR with a specific HoA, then Binding Revocation makes sense, but, at the time of discussing this issue that mechanism for MNP allocation was NOT available or standardized.
 
I hope this addresses your concern.

Regards,
Ahmad

 


From: Tina TSOU [mailto:tena at huawei.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 9:31 PM
To: ops-dir at ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-mext-binding-revocation at tools.ietf.org
Subject: Comments on draft-ietf-mext-binding-revocation-08

Hi,
I think it is good shaped and can be moved forward except the NEMO case.
 
As the draft describes "These semantics are generic enough and can be used by mobility entities in the case of Mobile IPv6 and its extensions. ..."
 
As we know, the NEMO can be one of Mobile IPv6 extensions. However, I don't see any note about it. Therefore, I wonder if the draft is also applied for the NEMO case (RFC3963).
 
 
B. R.
Tina