Subject: [Mobike] confirming consensus on issues from Paris

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 21:12:41 +0300

In the Paris IETF we had a set of smaller issues and one
bigger issue. It seemed like we agreed on the smaller
issues in the meeting, but promised to confirm this on
the mailing list. This e-mail summarizes the proposals
and calls for people to voice additions or objections,
if any. If you agree with what we concluded in the
meeting, you don't need to respond.

The issues were:

Issue 22: NAT preventation name. The current name
of the payload is NAT_PREVENTION, which has led
people to believe that we're actually disabling NATs.
Unfortunately, we can only achieve the detection of
a NAT and refuse to operate over such a link. The
proposal is to change the name of the payload (and
the corresponding error) to more descriptive ones.
I believe we can leave the details to the editor,
but names such as NO_NAT_POLICY and DISALLOW_NATS
have been suggested.

Issue 24: This is a duplicate of issue 22.

Issue 35: Version numbers -- the proposal that we
came up with in the meeting was that if we move the
mobike-supported negotiation to the second pair of
messages (see issue 37), then the length of the messages
is not such an issue. As a result, we can use plain payload
without a version number.

Issue 36: Unacceptable addresses. There are cases
where the initiator does not know which one of the
retransmitted requests was really the one seen by the
responder and resulted in the unacceptable address
error. Pasi's solution for this is to send a new request
in this (corner) case.

Issue 37: Move MOBIKE supported notification from
IKEv2_SA_INIT to AUTH exchange. Lessens the
fragmentation problem, and allows also per-use
mobike usage policy.

Issue 27: I'll send a separate e-mail about this,
as text is needed.

Issue 34:  ---"---, as more discussion may be needed.

Pasi's meeting slides for the issue discussion and
minutes can be found from
  http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/05aug/slides/mobike-2.pdf
  http://www.machshav.com/pipermail/mobike/2005-August/000912.html

Please respond by Monday 22nd August.

--Jari

_______________________________________________
Mobike mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.machshav.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mobike

---

From: Tero Kivinen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 13:00:11 +0300

> but names such as NO_NAT_POLICY and DISALLOW_NATS

Those names are not very good, but as I cannot think any better...

> without a version number.

The issue 37 will solve this problem, so we can close that if issue 37
decides to move notifications to IKE_AUTH message.

> error. Pasi's solution for this is to send a new request

Now when I have had some more time to think about this, I think Pasi's
solution is the best. My original proposal (include the addresses in
the notify) might have some issues with NATs, so I think the Pasi's
solution is better.

> fragmentation problem, and allows also per-use

Moving the notification solves the issue 35, so I think we should move
the notifications.
-- 
[email-masked]
_______________________________________________
Mobike mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.machshav.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mobike