Re: Issue 59: Editorial comments from Tero (was: Comments of draft-ietf-mobike-protocol-04.txt)

Yes. Thanks.

--Jari

[email protected] wrote:

>Jari Arkko wrote:
>
>  
>
>>It was indeed intention that the return packet in step 3
>>would be lost. We forgot to draw this in the flow, however.
>>I have used something like
>>
>>                                            REQ
>>                  ------------------------------------------------>
>>                                            RESP
>>                                 /----------------------------------
>>
>>elsewhere. But the real question is I guess step 4
>>correctness. Yes, I actually thought that we could
>>switch to another request, but as you point out,
>>this is incorrect. Hmm... this means that we can't
>>piggyback the RR test/cookie2 all of a sudden. Oh
>>well, that means another roundtrip in this case.
>>Retransmit the step 3 packet to a different address,
>>then do an RR test separately.
>>    
>>
>
>I edited it like this:
>
>   (The initiator suspects a problem in the currently used address pair,
>   and probes its liveness.)
>
>   3) (IP_I1:500 -> IP_R1:500)
>      HDR, SK { N(NAT_DETECTION_*_IP) }  -->
>
>      (IP_I1:500 -> IP_R1:500)
>      HDR, SK { N(NAT_DETECTION_*_IP) }  -->
>
>      ...
>
>   (Eventually, the initiator gives up on the current address pair, and
>   tests the other available address pair.)
>
>   4) (IP_I1:500 -> IP_R2:500)
>      HDR, SK { N(NAT_DETECTION_*_IP) }
>
>                            <--  (IP_R2:500 -> IP_I1:500)
>                                 HDR, SK { N(NAT_DETECTION_*_IP) }
>
>   (This worked, and the initiator requests the peer to switch to new
>   addresses.)
>
>   5) (IP_I1:500 -> IP_R2:500)
>      HDR, SK { N(UPDATE_SA_ADDRESSES),
>                N(NAT_DETECTION_*_IP),
>                N(COOKIE2) }  -->
>
>                            <--  (IP_R2:500 -> IP_I1:500)
>                                 HDR, SK { N(NAT_DETECTION_*_IP),
>                                           N(COOKIE2) }
>
>Does this look right?
>
>Best regards,
>Pasi
>
>
>  
>