Subject: Re: [MOBILE-IP] Missing Terminology in RFC2002bis

From: "Charles E. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 08:40:01 -0700

Hello Jiwoong Lee,

I am processing more of the comments that you have submitted
regarding RFC 2002bis.  I appreciate that you have taken the time
to contribute these ideas.

As editor, and in consideration of the status of Mobile IP, I feel
that changes to the document need to be selected very judiciously.
Thus, I didn't add two of your suggested terminology definitions,
for reasons as follows.

> Authentication
>     The recipient of a message should be able to determine ho the actual
>     (real) originator of the message is.

Here's what I wrote:
        The process of verifying (using cryptographic techniques, for
        all applications in this specification) the identity of the
        originator of a message.

> Authorisation
>     Provide the ability to an organisation that owns and/or operates a
>     network to decide who may attach to the network resources may be
>     used by the attaching node.

This term is not used in RFC2002bis, so I didn't use this definition.
It is much more relevant to recent work done in the aaa-wg.

> Location Privacy
>     Gives the ability to a sender of a message to control which, if any,
>     receivers know the location of the sender's current physical attachment
>     to the network. Location privacy is concerned with hiding the location
> of
>     an MN from CN's.

Location Privacy does not play a significant role in RFC2002{,bis}.  There
is a section describing privacy considerations, but it is self-contained.
Therefore, defining this new term seems unnecessary for understanding
the rest of the document, and unnecessary for understanding the privacy
section.

Thanks again for these comments.  If you still think that the other two
terms need to be defined, please send your additional comments to the
mailing list.

Regards,
Charlie P.