Re: Issue 46 (was: protocol draft status and movingforward)

Mohan Parthasarathy wrote:

> Hmm...part of the problem is that NO_ADDITIONAL_ADDRESS is really
> DELETE_ADDITIONAL_ADDRESS. But we don't want to use the word
> DELETE because we provide only replace semantics. It may sound
> trivial, but what exact action (delete the addresses contained in
> the previous ADD_ADDITIONAL_IP*) needs to be performed is not
> explained anywhere (not in 05). The defintion in 4.3 contains :
>
>   The NO_ADDITIONAL_ADDRESSES notification can be included in an
>   INFORMATIONAL exchange request message to indicate that the
>   exchange initiator does not have addresses beyond the one used
>   in the exchange (see Section 3.6 for more detailed description).
>
> Section 3.6 only contains "update the peer addresses ...". Perhaps
> the definition should be appended with.. "The exchange initiator
> sends this notification to delete the addresses sent in the
> earlier ADD_ADDITIONAL_ADDRESS notification".

The draft does not have an ADD_ADDITIONAL_ADDRESS notification; 
the new list always replaces the old information.

But here's a yet another attempt to rewrite the beginning of 
Section 3.6:

   As described in Section 3.4, both the initiator and responder can
   send a list of additional addresses in the IKE_AUTH exchange.  This
   information can be updated by sending an INFORMATIONAL exchange
   request message that contains either one or more ADDITIONAL_IP4/
   6_ADDRESS notifications or the NO_ADDITIONAL_ADDRESSES notification.

   If the exchange initiator has only a single IP address, it is placed
   in the IP header, and the message contains the
   NO_ADDITIONAL_ADDRESSES notification.  If the exchange initiator has
   several addresses, one of them is placed in the IP header, and the
   rest in ADDITIONAL_IP4/6_ADDRESS notifications.  The new list of
   addresses replaces the old information (in other words, there are no
   separate add/delete operations; instead, the complete list is sent
   every time these notifications are used).

Does this look better?

(BTW, it seems issue 58 is essentially a duplicate of this one)

Best regards,
Pasi