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

From: Patrice Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 17:26:25 -0800

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
>>
>>
>

---

From: "Kent K. Leung" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 22:24:13 -0800

Sure, no problem.  Will update draft.  Thanks.

-- Kent --