Subject: Re: [mobile-ip] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-mobileip-aaa-nai-02.txt

From: "Madhavi W. Chandra" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 16:41:10 -0500

Hi Fredrik and Tony,

It may be helpful to include text on what happens when an MN receives
these extensions but doesn't understand them.  For example, does the
HA continue to append these extensions to the RPYs...even though the MN
is dropping them?

Just to clarify...the HA will append TWO extensions per RPY...one
for HA Identity, and one for AAAH Identity, right?  (Similarly for the
MN in the RRQ.)

Thanks,
Madhavi

On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 10:32:59AM -0500, Phil Roberts wrote:
> This is a Mobile IP WG last call for the I-D
> draft-ietf-mobileip-aaa-nai-02.txt AAA NAI for Mobile IPv4 Extension. This
> draft will be
> sent to the IESG requesting a proposed standard status to be associated with
> it at the end of the last call period. Please send
> your comments to the WG discussion list.
>  
> WG Last call issued on : Nov 26, 2002
> Expires on : Dec 10, 2002
>  
> Gabriel Montenegro
> Basavaraj Patil
> Phil Roberts

---

From: "Fredrik Johansson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 03:30:47 +0100

Madhavi,

sorry for the late response, I've been traveling for the last week and
unfortunately there hasn't been much time over for answering mail.

anyway, you wanted some clarifications what the MN would do if it didn't
understand the extensions. Since the extensions are assigned from the
skippable space the extensions will be dropped and ignored by the Mobile
Node.

Everyting will still work, but a mobile that doesn't understand the
extension may not end up on the same AAA server when it re-registers. thus
the handling may be less efficient.

Can you please suggest some text if you belive this needs to be further
clarified in the draft.

> for HA Identity, and one for AAAH Identity, right?  (Similarly for the

Correct

thanks
/fredrik

---

From: "Madhavi W. Chandra" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 13:17:07 -0500

Hi Fredrik,

> skippable space the extensions will be dropped and ignored by the Mobile

Right...the extensions will be dropped by the MN.  I was mainly thinking
if some text could guard against the HA inefficiently adding the AAA-NAI
extensions to subsequent RPYs.  Maybe some text as follows:

"If an HA appended an AAA-NAI extension to a Registration Reply to an MN,
and does not receive the AAA-NAI extensions in subsequent Registration
Request messages from the MN, the HA can assume that the MN does not 
understand the AAA-NAI extensions.  In this case, the HA SHOULD NOT 
append the AAA-NAI to further Registration Reply messages to the MN."

What do you think?

Also, portions of the draft seem to be Diameter-specific...perhaps you
can add appropriate wording to the draft to clarify this?

Thanks,
Madhavi