Subject: Re: [MOBILE-IP] draft-ietf-mobileip-vendor-ext-09.txt

From: Mohamed Khalil <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 09:11:57 -0600

Hi All,

I agree with Pat that we should take byte alignment in consideration because
it is a little more efficient to execute extension which preserve byte
alignment. We will fix this in the next version.

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrice Calhoun [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2000 7:26 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [MOBILE-IP] draft-ietf-mobileip-vendor-ext-09.txt

yes, but we (many of us) repetedly requested that the MIER length be
aligned,
and you can bet that the MIER draft will be stopped during WG last call
because this was never addressed. Perhaps this requires a separate thread
on the subject, but I am just tired to stating the same thing over and
over and over .... (get the picture :).

So, while I agree that CVSE is not an authentication extension,
alignment is good. alignment is my friend, and I would really like
people to take that into account, when possible, during protocol
design.

Thanks,

PatC

>The CVSE is not an Authentication extension, so I'm not clear
>why it should follow this convention?  Doesn't this conflict
>with MIER draft?
>
>2.2 New [Proposed] Mobile IP Extension format
>
>    This draft proposes the following structure for Mobile IP
>    extensions to be carried in the Mobile IP control messages.
>
>     0                   1                   2                   3
>     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>    |     Type      |             Length            |    Sub-Type   |
>    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>    |                           Data      .....
>    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
>-- Kent --
>
>>
>> Is there anyway that we could change "Critical Vendor/Organization
Specific
>> Extension (CVSE)" to have the Length aligned on a 16 bit boundary? This
>> would be more consistent with the new Generalized Authentication and Key
>> drafts, and would provide consistent extension parsing.
>>
>> PatC
>>
>>
>