Subject: [MOBILE-IP] WG Last Call - draft-ietf-mobileip-vendor-ext-04.txt

From: Basavaraj Patil <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 10:43:58 CST

Hello,

This is a Working Group last call for the "Mobile IP
Vendor/Organization-Specific Extensions"
(draft-ietf-mobileip-vendor-ext-04.txt) I-D.
Please provide feedback and comments pertaining to
this I-D within the next two weeks after which time we
 will forward this document to the IESG.

Regards,
-Basavaraj Patil

---

From: Jouni Malinen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 13:00:46 +0200

>  will forward this document to the IESG.

I have a couple of small comments to this I-D. These should be easy to
fix before further processing of the document.

The draft mentions the use of vendor extensions only with registration
requests and replies. What about agent advertisements? The same
mechanism would work with those so it might also be specified in the
draft and the extensions types could be reserved for both the
advertisement and registration messages.

The used protocol numbers (ext. type and reply code) has duplicates in
a couple of earlier drafts (ext. type 133 duplicated in
draft-calhoun-mobileip-aaa-key-00.txt and reply code 140 duplicated in
draft-ietf-mobileip-calhoun-tep-01.txt). I gathered a list of numbers
used in Mobile IP related drafts a while ago and there seems to be
quite a lot of similar duplications (an example of the need for this
kind of vendor extensions ;-). The used numbers are apparently not yet
assigned by IANA so some of the drafts need to change the numbers.

> 2.1. Critical Vendor/Organization Specific Extension (CVSE)

> The length field of this extension is chosen to be two bytes long
> to allow for more than 251 bytes of Opaque Data.

Vendor/Org-ID is 4 bytes, Vendor-Type 2 bytes, so the total header
after length field is 6 bytes. Using 1-byte length the maximum length
for Opaque Data would therefore be 249 bytes (not 251).

> 2.3 Vendor/Organization Specific Extensions Processing Considerations

- handling of registration _reply_ with unknown ext. type 133 (NVSE)
  was not specified in the draft

> 2.4 Error Codes

How does the HA choose which error code to use (140 or 141)?
  * 140, if the unknown vendor ext. was before MN-HA auth?
  * 141, otherwise
This was not specified in the draft - should it be?

Ref [5]:
s/Octobre/October/

- couple of line indentation mismatchs in the references

--
Jouni Malinen

---

From: Gopal Dommety <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 16:06:37 -0800

Hello Jouni:

Thanks for the commments. comments and fixes below.

-Gopal

>advertisement and registration messages.

will add a statement saying that vend ext can be used in other mobile IP messages (eg. registration update or binding update).

Will also add a section on what the future mobile IP messages need to do to make use of vendor specific extension.

 In the case of agent advertisements, the concern is that since agent advertisement is an ICMP message, do we need the ICMP or IRDP guys to bless this? How did we get the mobile IP extensions to advertisements?

>assigned by IANA so some of the drafts need to change the numbers.

I tried to make sure of that the space does not overlap with the RFCs and drafts in last call/under review
by IESG. I was hoping that everyone does the same. Let me know if a comprehensive list exists anywhere.

Let me know if a scan of all the drafts is needed.

>for Opaque Data would therefore be 249 bytes (not 251).

I fixed it. When I added the vendor-type, I forgot to update the discussion.

>  was not specified in the draft

I updated the paragraph handeling the reg request to include all mobile IP message that will
use the vendor specific extension.

I will also make it generic to mobile IP messages whereever applicable.

>This was not specified in the draft - should it be?

Yes.  I think it is implied from RFC2002. If the group feels it is better to make it explicit, let me know. I am leaving a reserved byte (0) for now. Later, if required we can use this to explictly specify how is sending it and to whom.

>- couple of line indentation mismatchs in the references

Thanks a lot.
Regards,
Gopal