Subject: [Mip6] Comments for draft-ietf-mip6-aaa-ha-goals-03

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 23:32:14 +0100

Hi all,

I went through the draft-ietf-mip6-aaa-ha-goals-03 document. The 
document only needs some minor corrections.

Terminology section: You might want to say:

"
    In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
    "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY",
    and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [1],
    with the qualification that unless otherwise stated these words apply
    to the design of the AAA protocol extension, not its implementation
    or its usage.
"

The requirements should then be phrased in such a way that they refer to 
the design of the protocol rather its usage.

The following example shows what I mean:

    G5.1  The HA SHOULD be able to communicate to the AAAH server the
       Home Address allocated to the MN (e.g., for allowing the AAAH
       server to perform a DNS update on behalf of the MN).

Here, I think the AAA protocol extension MUST allow Home Address to be 
communicated from the HA to the MN. It is, however, not necessary to use 
it.

    G5.2  The AAAH SHOULD be able to indicate to the HA if the MN is
       authorized to autoconfigure its Home Address.

The same here. The protocol must support a way to allow the AAAH to 
indicate whether autoconfigure the HoA. It obviously does not need to 
use it.

The same is true for G2.2, G2.3, G5.1, G5.2, G6.2, and G6.3.

Requirement G6.3 should use the terms AAAH and NAS instead of 
ASP/MSP/MSA.

I am not sure whether you agree with me but see it in the following way: 
If I don't implement SHOULD and MAY requirements I don't think I can 
design an interoperable protocol.

    G2.1  The AAA-HA interface SHOULD allow the use of Network Access
       Identifier (NAI) to identify the user.

Why "SHOULD" instead of "MUST"?
What identifier would you like to use instead of a NAI?

There are still some minor typos and editorial issues in the document. I 
will not describe them here.

I would replace the term "interface" with "protocol" and "goals" with 
"requirements" to get the document more inline with other IETF 
requirements documents.

Ciao
Hannes

_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6

---

From: "Gerardo Giaretta" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 14:51:59 +0100

Hi Hannes,

thanks for the review. Please see below..

> communicated from the HA to the MN. It is, however, not necessary to use

Are you suggesting to rephrase all requirements in terms of "the AAA
protocol MUST allow...". That is fine with me. What do others think?

> "requirements" to get the document more inline with other IETF

Some people were against the usage of requirements. I don't have a
strong opinion on this.

--Gerardo

---

From: Yoshihiro Ohba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 10:22:53 -0500

> protocol MUST allow...". That is fine with me. What do others think?

Agreed.

Yoshihiro Ohba