Re: MOBIKE work
Francis Dupont <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.mobike |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
In your previous mail you wrote:
We have grouped the issues as follows:
=> I like the requirement/mechanism/policy grouping but...
User-level visible "requirement" issues:
========================================
- How much protection against 3rd party bombing should
MOBIKE offer?
=> this is a policy issue with another suit, or do you refer
to what I call the "transient pseudo-NAT attack"?
Other issues which clearly need a lot of work:
==============================================
- Explicit vs. implicit address changes.
=> in fact this is more a charter issue (:-)!
Smaller issues that might be easy to decide:
============================================
- Signaling support for MOBIKE.
=> are signaling and mechanism the same thing. I don't understand
the question for sure.
- Are empty informational exchanges sufficient for
return routability test, or is a cookie needed?
=> this question has no meaning (i.e., the answer is trivial)
in the IKEv2 context.
- Is a set of zero addresses allowed?
=> interesting question but not a "small issue" at all!
- Move all SAs at once, or allow individual movements?
=> not small too, IMHO this is the main difference between my and
Tero's proposal.
- Window size issues.
=> can you explain? IKEv2 is a sequenced protected exchange protocol.
Thanks
[email protected]