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

From: "Nakhjiri Madjid-MNAKHJI1" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 12:30:40 -0500

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 13:27:13 -0800

> the same field, you just enter zero when no value is available.

then we need one more clarification. if the SPI is set to
CHAP_SPI and the mobile node is using co-located CoA mode,
it sets the challenge to 0. if the SPI is something else,
the mobile node leaves out the challenge while calculating
the authenticator field.

agreed? please excuse me if this sounds obvious to you. :)

Vijay