Subject: RE: [Mip4] review: draft-ietf-mip4-rfc3012bis-04.txt

From: "Jayshree Bharatia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 17:56:30 -0600

Hi Madjid,

OK. In this case, I will include his text in section 3.1 (Mobile Node
processing of Registration Requests) rather than having a new section as
he suggested. I will also include his proposed text for "Security
Considerations" section.

Thanks,
Jayshree

-----Original Message-----
From: Nakhjiri Madjid-MNAKHJI1 [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 5:42 PM
To: Bharatia, Jayshree [RICH1:2H13:EXCH]; Vijay Devarapalli; Kent Leung
(kleung)
Cc: [email-masked]; Charles E. Perkins
Subject: RE: [Mip4] review: draft-ietf-mip4-rfc3012bis-04.txt

Jayshree, 

Appreciate for the effort on gaining consensus.
I don't have a strong position either way, the text is now complete. I
sort of agree with Vijay that you might want to add that "In CCoA,
replay protection is provided through methods specified in 3344
(Identification field in RRQ)", this is just to keep people from
wondering... I am fine with either way consensus goes on this one.

Madjid

-----Original Message-----
From: Jayshree Bharatia [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 2:30 PM
To: Nakhjiri Madjid-MNAKHJI1; Vijay Devarapalli; Kent Leung (kleung)
Cc: [email-masked]; Charles E. Perkins
Subject: RE: [Mip4] review: draft-ietf-mip4-rfc3012bis-04.txt

Hi all,

Thanks for all your comments. In summary, I see that we have now general
agreement that co-located CoA support for MN-AAA extension will be part
of this draft. In that respect, I am considering text proposed by Vijay
for section 3.1 and 3.5. 

Currently we have text saying that the mechanism used by the mobile node
to obtain the Challenge value in this case is outside the scope of this
document. Based on the input from Kent and Madjid, the following is the
proposal (modified Vijay's proposal for section 3.5):

From:
In the co-located CoA mode, the mobile node will receive a Registration
Reply without the Challenge Extension and processes the Registration
Reply as specified in [RFC3344].

To:
In the co-located CoA mode, the mobile node will receive a Registration
Reply without the Challenge Extension and processes the Registration
Reply as specified in [RFC3344]. In this case, the Challenge value 0 is
recommended for the authenticator calculation mentioned in section 8.

Please note that I haven't included Vijay's proposed text for a new
section (5) and also for Security Considerations since they are already
part of RFC3344.

Regards,
Jayshree

-----Original Message-----
From: Nakhjiri Madjid-MNAKHJI1 [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 11:31 AM
To: Vijay Devarapalli; Kent Leung (kleung)
Cc: Bharatia, Jayshree [RICH1:2H13:EXCH]; [email-masked]; Charles E.
Perkins
Subject: RE: [Mip4] review: draft-ietf-mip4-rfc3012bis-04.txt

Vijay,

However we want to do it, needs to be specified. Motorola development
folks share Nokia's confusion:) I think only a handful of people in the
industry know exactly how 3344, 3012, 3957, 4004 all work together and
that is why the key bootstrapping is not getting any traction in the
implementations. We have endless internal "educative" sessions on this
too :) I believe 4004  for Diameter missed the problem with MN-AAA AE
for direct RRQs. We tried to cover it in RADIUS-MIP draft, but I don't
think that is the right place for it. We suggested zero based on
Charlie's initial suggestion to make implementation of CoA and CCoA less
complex, you have the same field, you just enter zero when no value is
available.

Madjid

> Also, MN sets the challenge value to zero in the MN-AAA authenticator 
> computation.

hmm.. how about the MN does not use any challenge value (whether 0 or
anything else)? it calculates the MN-AAA authenticator without any
challenge field. one the basic clarifications that is needed is that
there is no challenge to use when there is no FA.

>>- clarify that in the absence of a challenge, replay protection is 
>>provided by the identification field.
>>
> I don't think this is necessary, but doesn't matter too much to me 
> either.

well, folks inside Nokia who implement mobile nodes were very confused
by RFC 3012. it would be good to make this explicit.

Vijay

--
Mip4 mailing list: [email-masked]
    Web interface: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4
     Charter page: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mip4-charter.html
Supplemental site: http://www.mip4.org/

-- 
Mip4 mailing list: [email-masked]
    Web interface: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4
     Charter page: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mip4-charter.html
Supplemental site: http://www.mip4.org/

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 16:06:50 -0800

thanks.

Vijay