Subject: [MOBILE-IP] Length of Challenge data

From: "Charles E. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 22:09:09 -0800

Hello,

The current Challenge draft states that the length of the
Challenge data MUST be at least 16 bytes.  As it turns out,
this extension is useful for purposes that do not require
such long challenge data.  Thus, I would like to adjust this
language to allow shorter data.  I hope this does not amount
to a significant change, so that we can continue the existing
Last Call.  I do not remember that anyone ever made a case
for this one way or another, and the strong language in the
current draft appeared there without any real discussion to
support it.  I would just make the appropriate changes to the
IANA considerations that have already been suggested, and make
this change also, as the draft goes under consideration at
the IESG.

Regards,
Charlie P.

---

From: "Lipford, Mark" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 09:15:13 -0600

Charlie,

I am not aware of an issue (from my perspective) with making this change, my
concern is keeping the I-D on last call as you have indicated.  TR45.6 has a
need to get this I-D into RFC state soon.

Regards.

                -----Original Message-----
                From:   Charles E. Perkins [mailto:[email-masked]]
                Sent:   Wednesday, February 02, 2000 12:09 AM
                To:     [email-masked]
                Subject:        [MOBILE-IP] Length of Challenge data

                Hello,

                The current Challenge draft states that the length of the
                Challenge data MUST be at least 16 bytes.  As it turns out,
                this extension is useful for purposes that do not require
                such long challenge data.  Thus, I would like to adjust this
                language to allow shorter data.  I hope this does not amount
                to a significant change, so that we can continue the
existing
                Last Call.  I do not remember that anyone ever made a case
                for this one way or another, and the strong language in the
                current draft appeared there without any real discussion to
                support it.  I would just make the appropriate changes to
the
                IANA considerations that have already been suggested, and
make
                this change also, as the draft goes under consideration at
                the IESG.

                Regards,
                Charlie P.