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

--- [email protected] wrote:

> 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
>
If there is only one address, why do you need to
explicitly tell your peer that you have
NO_ADDITIONAL_ADDRESS ? Isn't NO_ADDITIONAL_ADDRESS
needed only when oyu have sent ADDITIONAL_ADDRESS
previously ?

> 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?
> 
Please see my comments above. I think the only time we
send NO_ADDITIONAL_ADDRESS is when you have sent
ADDITIONAL_IP before. Otherwise, i don't know why
we need one.

thanks
mohan

> (BTW, it seems issue 58 is essentially a duplicate
> of this one)
> 
> Best regards,
> Pasi
>