Subject: Re: [Mobike] Issue 46 (was: protocol draft status and movingforward)

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 02:32:34 +0200

Mohan Parthasarathy wrote:

> Hmm...part of the problem is that NO_ADDITIONAL_ADDRESS is really
> DELETE_ADDITIONAL_ADDRESS. But we don't want to use the word
> DELETE because we provide only replace semantics. It may sound
> trivial, but what exact action (delete the addresses contained in
> the previous ADD_ADDITIONAL_IP*) needs to be performed is not
> explained anywhere (not in 05). The defintion in 4.3 contains :
>
>   The NO_ADDITIONAL_ADDRESSES notification can be included in an
>   INFORMATIONAL exchange request message to indicate that the
>   exchange initiator does not have addresses beyond the one used
>   in the exchange (see Section 3.6 for more detailed description).
>
> Section 3.6 only contains "update the peer addresses ...". Perhaps
> the definition should be appended with.. "The exchange initiator
> sends this notification to delete the addresses sent in the
> earlier ADD_ADDITIONAL_ADDRESS notification".

The draft does not have an ADD_ADDITIONAL_ADDRESS notification; 
the new list always replaces the old information.

But here's a yet another attempt to rewrite the beginning of 
Section 3.6:

   As described in Section 3.4, both the initiator and responder can
   send a list of additional addresses in the IKE_AUTH exchange.  This
   information can be updated by sending an INFORMATIONAL exchange
   request message that contains either one or more ADDITIONAL_IP4/
   6_ADDRESS notifications or the NO_ADDITIONAL_ADDRESSES notification.

   If the exchange initiator has only a single IP address, it is placed
   in the IP header, and the message contains the
   NO_ADDITIONAL_ADDRESSES notification.  If the exchange initiator has
   several addresses, one of them is placed in the IP header, and the
   rest in ADDITIONAL_IP4/6_ADDRESS notifications.  The new list of
   addresses replaces the old information (in other words, there are no
   separate add/delete operations; instead, the complete list is sent
   every time these notifications are used).

Does this look better?

(BTW, it seems issue 58 is essentially a duplicate of this one)

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

---

From: Mohan Parthasarathy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 17:51:08 -0800 (PST)

--- [email-masked] wrote:

>    NO_ADDITIONAL_ADDRESSES notification.  If the
>
If there is only one address, why do you need to
explicitly tell your peer that you have
NO_ADDITIONAL_ADDRESS ? Isn't NO_ADDITIONAL_ADDRESS
needed only when oyu have sent ADDITIONAL_ADDRESS
previously ?

> exchange initiator has
Please see my comments above. I think the only time we
send NO_ADDITIONAL_ADDRESS is when you have sent
ADDITIONAL_IP before. Otherwise, i don't know why
we need one.

thanks
mohan

---

From: Tero Kivinen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 04:12:30 +0200

> needed only when oyu have sent ADDITIONAL_ADDRESS

If you do not include it then then you are not updating address list
of the other end. See my previous email to the list, i.e. would adding
follogin text help: 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
    The NO_ADDITIONAL_ADDRESSES notify is needed, as otherwise it
    would not be possible to distinguish empty DPD message from
    address update message that does not have any additional
    addresses. Now we can distinguish them, as DPD is empty
    INFORMATIONAL exchange and address update with no extra addresses
    is INFORMATIONAL exchange having only N(NO_ADDITIONAL_ADDRESSES).
    Both of them can have other additional payloads like N(COOKIE2)
    etc.  
-- 
[email-masked]
_______________________________________________
Mobike mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.machshav.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mobike