Subject: [mobile-ip] RFC3012-bis EDITORIAL question

From: "Woojune Kim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 13:25:53 -0500

Hi,

These are more along editorial nits on 3012-bis.

1. Section 3 first paragraph : Change "..   See appendix C for a diagram .." to " Section C, D".

2. Appendix C : last line : change "next registration reply" to "next registration request".

3. Appendix C : general question on Figure 5. Are all the auth ext of the same type ? Wouldn't it be useful to show which is which ? For example, sec 6 clearly indicates only a MN-HA authentication should be in the reply, if that is the case, the last RRep from the FA to the MN's Auth Ext should be different. Also based on the HA's RRep to the infra, it seems any MN-HA authentication is being assumed to be included in the RRep object, so no need to draw it in the FA to MN reply. i.e. just say RRep + New Challenge.
End result should be something like :

    MN                  FA                   Verification     Home Agent
     |<-- Adv+Challenge--|                  Infrastructure          |
     |    (if needed)    |                         |                |
     |                   |                         |                |
     |-- RReq+Challenge->|                         |                |
     |+ MN-AAA Auth.Ext. |                         |                |
     |                   |   Auth. Request, incl.  |                |
     |                   |--- RReq + Challenge --->|                |
     |                   |  + MN-AAA Auth.Ext      |   RReq +       |
     |                   |                         |-- Challenge -->|
     |                   |                         |                |
     |                   |                         |                |
     |                   |                         |<--- RRep ----- |
     |                   |   Authorization, incl.  |                |
     |                   |<-- RRep ----------------|                |
     |                   |                         |                |
     |<-- RRep  ---------|                         |                |
     |  + New Challenge  |                         |                |

           Figure 5: Message Flows for FA Challenge Messaging
		(* Note : RRep contains MN-HA Authentication)

4. Appendix D : change the figure 6 to the following. (similar logic to comment 3.)

         MN                  FA                     Home Agent
          |<-- Adv+Challenge--|                         |
          |    (if needed)    |                         |
          |                   |                         |
          |-- RReq+Challenge->|                         |
          | + MN-FA Auth.Ext. |                         |
          |                   |--- RReq + Challenge --->|
          |                   |   + HA-FA Auth.Ext      |
          |                   |                         |
          |                   |<-- RRep + Challenge ----|
          |                   |   + HA-FA Auth.Ext      |
          |                   |                         |
          |<-- RRep ----------|                         |
          |  + New Challenge  |                         |

           Figure 6: Message Flows for FA Challenge Messaging
                       with MN-FA Authentication
		(* Note : RRep contains MN-HA Authentication)

thanks

Woojune

---

From: "Jayshree Bharatia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 13:52:19 -0600

Hello Woojune,

Thanks for the editorial nits. I will include your points 1 and 2 but point
3 needs to wait until we have resolved the issue of having multiple
extensions in the same Registration Request. 

Regards,
Jayshree
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Woojune Kim [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 12:26 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [mobile-ip] RFC3012-bis EDITORIAL question 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 3. Appendix C : general question on Figure 5. Are all the 
> auth ext of the same type ? Wouldn't it be useful to show 
> which is which ? For example, sec 6 clearly indicates only a 
> MN-HA authentication should be in the reply, if that is the 
> case, the last RRep from the FA to the MN's Auth Ext should 
> be different. Also based on the HA's RRep to the infra, it 
> seems any MN-HA authentication is being assumed to be 
> included in the RRep object, so no need to draw it in the FA 
> to MN reply. i.e. just say RRep + New Challenge.