Subject: Re: [Mipshop] Revised I-D: draft-ietf-mipshop-cga-cba-03.txt

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:07:54 -0800 (PST)

Hi Christian,
  I could not understand why you have HA in Figs. 1 & 3? I understand why in Fig. 2. Can you please shed some light into this?
  Also, there seems to be no Fig. 4 in the draft and it jumps to Fig. 5.

Regards,

--behcet

----- Original Message ----
From: Christian Vogt <[email-masked]>
To: Mipshop <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: Stefano Faccin <[email-masked]>; Wassim Haddad <[email-masked]>; Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>; Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>; Eric Gray (LO/EUS) <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2007 6:09:47 PM
Subject: [Mipshop] Revised I-D: draft-ietf-mipshop-cga-cba-03.txt

Hello folks,

we updated draft-ietf-mipshop-cga-cba according to the comments and
suggestions that Eric Gray posted on the IETF Discussion mailing list
during IETF Last Call.  Here is a change log (not including purely
editorial items):

   o  Reference to RFC 3972 ("Cryptographically Generated Addresses") is
      now normative.

   o  More detailed IANA considerations.

   o  Fixed reference to BCP 14, RFC 2119, so that Nit Checker does no
      longer complain.

   o  Clarified in Section 3.1 that CGAs do not require a public-key
      infrastructure, even though they make use of public-key
      cryptography.

   o  Included intended status ("Proposed Standard") at beginning of
      document.

You can access the revised draft version as well as a diff against the
previous version 02 at:

http://doc.tm.uka.de/2007/draft-ietf-mipshop-cga-cba-03.txt
http://doc.tm.uka.de/2007/draft-ietf-mipshop-cga-cba-02to03.html

Best regards,
- Christian

-- 
Christian Vogt, Institute of Telematics, Universitaet Karlsruhe (TH)
www.tm.uka.de/~chvogt/pubkey/

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

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

---

From: Christian Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 02:09:42 +0100

Hi Behcet,

thanks for reading the draft!

> I could not understand why you have HA in Figs. 1 & 3? I understand 
> why in Fig. 2. Can you please shed some light into this?

We included the HA in all figures so that the figures are more
comparable.  As you say, we need the HA in figure 2 due to the HoA test.
 Having the HA in that figure, we thought it would be good to also
include the home registration messages (BU/BA with HA).  This in turn
means that the home registration should appear in all figures, hence the
HA is in all figures.

> Also, there seems to be no Fig. 4 in the draft and it jumps to Fig.

My bad:  I used xml2rfc and accidentally wrapped an artwork with
"figure" tags.  The figure tags did not include a caption, so the
mistake was not that obvious.  Thanks for pointing this out.  Will fix
this in the next revision, or in AUTH48.

Best,
- Christian

Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
> Hi Christian, I could not understand why you have HA in Figs. 1 & 3?
> I understand why in Fig. 2. Can you please shed some light into this?