Subject: [MOBILE-IP] Vendor/Organization-Specific Extensions

From: Henry Haverinen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 15:29:52 +0300

Hi all,

I have some questions concerning draft-ietf-mobileip-vendor-ext-11.txt.

Section 2.3 doesn't cover the case of an Agent Advertisement
containing a CVSE. Is this because the operation is obvious (MN
must silently discard the Advertisement)?
Such an extension is useful if a FA doesn't want to receive
Registration Requests from MNs that don't support a certain vendor/
organization-specific feature.

I wonder why the current version of the vendor-ext draft doesn't suggest
any type values for the extensions but just says "to be assigned by IANA".
Did the type values used in previous versions (38 and 134) overlap
with some other draft? It might be a good idea to give some initial
guesses for the types so that people can be implement the draft and test
the interoperability of their implementations. I guess even the vendor-
specific extensions should be tested for interoperability, as the draft
specifies processing considerations for unrecognized vendor types.

Regards,
Henry

---

From: Gopal Dommety <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 10:42:50 -0700

>must silently discard the Advertisement)?

That is correct.

>organization-specific feature.

Yes, if you want the entire advertisement to be ignored.

>specifies processing considerations for unrecognized vendor types.

We did specify the type values and IESG instructed  that we remove the
any recommended assignments by us. The values we picked were not
conflicting with any assigned value. I think this is an IESG policy.