Subject: [mobile-ip] RFC3344 Text Clarification

From: "Jayshree Bharatia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 14:37:55 -0600

Hello all,

I have found two contradicting text regarding inclusion of MN-FA
authentication extension in the Registration Request:

Section 3.5.3: The Mobile-Foreign Authentication Extension MAY be included
in Registration Requests and Replies in cases in which a mobility security
association exists between the mobile node and the foreign agent.

Section 3.6.1.3: Mobile-Foreign Authentication Extension MUST be included
(in the Registration Request) when the mobile node and the foreign agent
share a mobility security association.

Any thoughts?

Regards,
Jayshree

---

From: "Robert J Marks" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 16:25:49 -0600

Hi Jayshree,
 
I believe 3.5.3 is a MAY since there might not be a security association
between the mobile node and the foreign agent. 3.5.3 only defines the
extension.
 
3.6.1.3 is a MUST "only" for the case when there is a security
association between the mobile node and the foreign agent. This text has
been present since RFC2002.
 
I don't think there is any ambiguity or contradiction.
 
Bob
 
 -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jayshree
Bharatia
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 2:38 PM
To: [email-masked]'
Subject: [mobile-ip] RFC3344 Text Clarification

Hello all, 

Section 3.5.3: The Mobile-Foreign Authentication Extension MAY be
included in Registration Requests and Replies in cases in which a
mobility security association exists between the mobile node and the
foreign agent.

Section 3.6.1.3: Mobile-Foreign Authentication Extension MUST be
included (in the Registration Request) when the mobile node and the
foreign agent share a mobility security association.

Any thoughts? 

Regards, 
Jayshree

---

From: "Robert J Marks" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 17:04:22 -0600

Jayshree,
 
After rereading the text in RFC2002, I can see where the sentence in
3.5.3
can be interpreted as meaning the mobile node has the option to not
include
the extension, even when it has a security association with the foreign
agent.
 
This exact situation also exists for the foreign-home authentication
extension.
 
3.5.4 states:
 
3.5.4. Foreign-Home Authentication Extension
 
   This Extension MAY be included in Registration Requests and Replies
   in cases in which a mobility security association exists between the
   foreign agent and the home agent.  See Section 5.1 for information
   about support requirements for message authentication codes.
 
but 3.7.1. states:
 
   As with any node on the Internet, a foreign agent MAY also share
   mobility security associations with any other nodes.  When relaying a
   Registration Request from a mobile node to its home agent, if the
   foreign agent shares a mobility security association with the home
   agent, it MUST add a Foreign-Home Authentication Extension to the
   Request and MUST check the required Foreign-Home Authentication
   Extension in the Registration Reply from the home agent (Sections 3.3
   and 3.4).  Similarly, when receiving a Registration Request from a
   mobile node, if the foreign agent shares a mobility security
   association with the mobile node, it MUST check the required Mobile-
   Foreign Authentication Extension in the Request and MUST add a
   Mobile-Foreign Authentication Extension to the Registration Reply to
   the mobile node.
 
Perhaps we should simply count the number of "conflicting" requirements,
and choose whichever is more numerous. :)
 
Bob 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Robert J Marks
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 4:26 PM
To: 'Jayshree Bharatia'; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] RFC3344 Text Clarification

Hi Jayshree,

 
 
Bob
 
 -----Original Message-----

Hello all, 

Any thoughts? 

Regards, 
Jayshree