Subject: [MEXT] IETF74 mext draft minutes

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 16:47:38 +0200

The draft minutes of the MEXT meeting are posted.

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/minutes/mext.txt

Let us know if you have comments corrections.

Thanks Ed Jankiewicz for taking the notes!

Regards, marcelo

---

From: George Tsirtsis <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 19:17:43 +0100

Marcelo,

See a correction below.

Thanks
George

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEXT meeting minutes
TUESDAY, March 24, 2009
1520-1700 Afternoon Session II
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minutes by: Ed Jankiewicz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...

- Open Issues with RFC 3775 bis - Charles Perkins
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mext-rfc3775bis-03

Recent revision including updates for all previous issues, closed or soon to be
Four new issues raise
1.	BU de-reg race
2.	malicious RA => MN
3.	additional spec for handling alt-CoA, how long to keep
4.	relax mandate to use IPsec, given RFC 4285

Race condition on BU de-register
When MN sends BU de-reg, the HA deletes the BCE.  What if MN previous BU was
delayed?  May arrive and HA interpret as a new registration (not
checking the sequence#)
Marcelo - do we want to deal with and how?
Vijay - the previous BU was a refresh?  Yes. Right, may create a new BCE
Hesham - we have to solve it.
George - yes it is an issue, but what is the solution
Raj Patel - corner case, may not worth solving in the 3775bis, but if
the fix is simple
Marcelo - yes, we should solve.  How?
Hesham - need state - sequence number, security association,
George - timeout, 5 minutes maybe, max time for BUs to arrive thru net.

GT> I think what I said was that: " max time for BU to arrive over the
internet should have something to do with half an max RTT over the
Internet. That is in the 100s of msecs. So the timeout of a few
seconds should be sufficient e.g., 5sec". I also think Vijay below
agreed with that suggestions.

Marcelo - reasonable?
Vijay - tentative delete?  New binding update arrives - ack or drop?
Sequence out of
order?  Silent drop?
...

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 20:54:20 +0200

corrected and posted
thanks!

regards, marcelo