Subject: [nemo] Problems in the rfc

From: Antonio de la Oliva Delgado <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 17:29:24 +0100

Hi all,

We are implementing the NEMO Basic Support Protocol within the framework
of the DAIDALOS European project. When dealing with the BU message
format part of the I-D, we have found that, IMHO, there is some text
that is not completely clear for a developer. 
The section 4.1 says:

   "A new flag (R) is included in the Binding Update to indicate to the
   Home Agent if the Binding Update is coming from a Mobile Router
   and not from a mobile node.  The rest of the Binding Update format
   remains the same as defined in [1].

        0                   1                   2                   3
        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
                                       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                       |          Sequence #           |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |A|H|L|K|M|R|      Reserved     |           Lifetime            |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                                                               |
       .                                                               .
       .                        Mobility options                       .
       .                                                               .
       |                                                               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
"

Reference [1] (RFC3775) says the following about the BU message format:

   "The Binding Update uses the MH Type value 5.  When this value is
   indicated in the MH Type field, the format of the Message Data field
   in the Mobility Header is as follows:

                                       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                       |          Sequence #           |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |A|H|L|K|        Reserved       |           Lifetime            |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                                                               |
       .                                                               .
       .                        Mobility options                       .
       .                                                               .
       |                                                               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
"

The bit M is not defined in RFC3775 or in the Nemo draft, but in the
HMIPv6 I-D (draft-ietf-mipshop-hmipv6-03.txt).

Therefore, I would suggest to reflect in the current text of the NEMO
Basic Support protocol, some reference about the HMIPv6 specification.

Kind Regards,
Antonio de la Oliva
Carlos J.

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 18:07:35 +0100

Antonio, thanks for the message and for looking at implementing.

You're right that the M bit comes before the R bit and that HMIPv6 is
not referenced in the NEMO document and thanks for pointing this out.
An explanation of this affair may be that neither the NEMO document nor
the HMIPv6 document are currently RFCs.  They're both in the RFC queue,
with a certain level of consensus roughness achieved.  So it's difficult
to reference each other right now.  It is usual to refer a draft from a
draft, and an RFC from a draft, but one would avoid referring a draft
from an RFC, no?

We've had a number of other remarks on text of the NEMO basic support
draft-03 that are also important and we've had the option of either
applying all the agreed changes on the current draft-03 or maybe wait
for it to become an RFC and re-issue rfcbis.  Vijay and Chairs can tell
more about this, it's a gray area for me at this point.

Alex

Antonio de la Oliva Delgado wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> We are implementing the NEMO Basic Support Protocol within the
> framework of the DAIDALOS European project. When dealing with the BU
> message format part of the I-D, we have found that, IMHO, there is
> some text that is not completely clear for a developer. The section
> 4.1 says:
> 
> Home Agent if the Binding Update is coming from a Mobile Router and
> not from a mobile node.  The rest of the Binding Update format 
> 0                   1                   2                   3 0 1 2 3
> 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |          Sequence #           | 
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
> | .                                                               . .
> Mobility options                       . .
> . |                                                               | 
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ "
> 
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |          Sequence #           | 
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
> | .                                                               . .
> Mobility options                       . .
> . |                                                               | 
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ "
> 
> Kind Regards, Antonio de la Oliva Carlos J.
> 
>

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 10:53:31 -0800

you can have internet drafts in Informative references. I will add
HMIPv6 to the informative references section (since you dont need
to know HMIPv6 to implement NEMO).

Vijay

Alexandru Petrescu wrote:

>> not from a mobile node.  The rest of the Binding Update format remains 
>> the same as defined in [1].
>>
>> 0                   1                   2                   3 0 1 2 3