Subject: [mobile-ip] editorial nits

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 16:55:44 -0800

section 9.3.2

>   When calculating authentication data in a
>   packet that contains a type 2 routing header, the correspondent node
>   MUST calculate the authentication data as if the following were true:
>   The routing header contains the care-of address, the destination IPv6
>   address field of the IPv6 header contains the home address, and the
>   Segments Left field is zero.  The IPsec Security Policy Database
>   consultation MUST based on the IP the mobile node's home address.

s/consultation/lookup/; s/the IP//

>    The IP layer will insert the routing header before performing IPsec
>    processing.  Once all IPsec processing has been performed, the node
>    swaps the IPv6 destination field with the Home Address field in the
>    routing header, sets the Segments Left field to one, and sends the
>    packet.  This ensures the AH calculation is done on the packet in the
>    form it will have on the receiver after advancing the routing header.

the above paragraph assumes IPsec is always being used. but OTOH, we 
need this paragraph if the CN is using AH to protect payload traffic 
(or even the binding ack, if IPsec is being used to secure MN-CN
binding updates).

Appendix A2 of RFC 2402 does talk about how to handle routing headers.
maybe we could just say Routing Header type 2 must be handled similar 
to Routing Header type 0 when it comes to AH.

section 10.3.1 

>    o  If the node is not a router that implements home agent
>       functionality, then the node MUST reject the Binding Update and
>       MUST return a Binding Acknowledgement to the mobile node, in which
>       the Status field is set to 131 (home registration not supported).
> 

if the node doesnt implement home agent functionality how can it send
a binding ack? an ICMP error makes more sense here?

ofcourse a CN should reject a BU with H=1 and send a binding ack with
status 131.

section 11.3.1

> direct delivery

Direct Delivery?

> reverse tunneling

Reverse Tunneling?

delete.
> 
>       Reverse tunneled return routability packets SHOULD be protected
>       using an ESP header.

not relevant in section 11.3.1. and it is mentioned quite a few 
times in the document. :-)

section 11.4.2 doesnt talk about what the identifier field should
be set to.

Vijay

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 08:54:50 +0200

Thanks! The issues you brought up have been corrected.
A few notes below:

Re: 2402 appendix A2: I did keep our own text on RH
handling, imho our text is more exact than the 2402 A2.

Re: error code 131: Here's the new text: "If the node
implements only correspondent node functionality, or has not
been configured to act as a home agent, then the node MUST
reject the Binding Update. The node MUST then also
return a Binding Acknowledgement to the mobile node,
in which the Status field is set to~131 (home
registration not supported)." (An ICMP is of course sent
if the node doesn't do MH at all.)

Re: Identifier field. New text: "The mobile node MUST set
the Identifier field in the ICMP header to a random value."

And 11.7.2: