Subject: [mobile-ip] Mipv6 issue #237: still some keywords mandating RO usage

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 11:30:39 +0200

Hi Pekka,

I think what you what you suggest below is quite reasonable.
For the first case, I think the address selection rules
will be sufficient. I changed the text to "should not".
For the second case, the referred 11.7.2 has the correct
formulations, so we don't need any keywords here. I changed
the text to "may".

Jari
----

Pekka Savola writes:

       such queries will generally have a lower overhead than using the
       mobile node's home address, since no extra options need be used in
       either the query or its reply.  Such packets can be routed
       normally, directly between their source and destination without
       relying on Mobile IPv6.  If application running on the mobile node
       has no particular knowledge that the communication being sent fits
       within this general type of communication, however, the mobile
       node SHOULD NOT use its care-of address as the source of the
       packet in this way.

==> I don't think it is appropriate to use upper-case normatives for
specification when MIPv6 usability is concerned (esp. SHOULD NOT);
thus remove the caps?

    For packets received by the first of these methods, the mobile node
    MUST check that the IPv6 source address of the tunneled packet is the
    IP address of its home agent.  In this method the mobile node SHOULD
    also send a Binding Update to the original sender of the packet, as
    described in Section 11.7.2, subject to the rate limiting defined in
    Section 11.8.

==> as previously stated, I find it unacceptable to specify this "SHOULD do
RO" in upper-caps.  Reverse tunneling can be totally OK.  People will start
doing RO if it makes sense for them, period -- no spec forcing is necessary.