Re: Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-dmm-lma-controlled-mag-params-04: (with COMMENT)

Hi Ben,




On 5/16/17, 8:52 AM, "Ben Campbell" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>> 
>> 
>> Yes, I do believe these options for indicating the
>>registration/heartbeat
>> timers do fall under the category of ³standard mobility options". Case
>>and
>> Point, RFC5847 defines an option for carrying ³RestartCounter² in a
>>MIPv6
>> signaling message, which the protocol peer stores and uses that counter.
>> In this example and as well in the current draft, the information
>>elements
>> carried in the option are in similar in nature, both are config
>>parameters
>> and these are elements that have influence on the protocol state
>>machine.
>
>Thanks, that's helpful information. I think a sentence or two to that
>effect would be useful in the draft. It probably doesn't need as much
>detail as you gave here. I envision something to the effect of "The
>options defined in this draft allow the configuration of re-registration
>and heartbeat frequencies. These security considerations in [RFC5213]
>apply."


Sure, we will add couple of sentences and resolve this. Thanks for the
review.

Regards
Sri