RE: Review of draft-ietf-semoby-card-protocol-02.txt
Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1 <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.seamoby |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hello Henrik, Thanks for your review comments. I would like to reply to one of your questions/comments. Please see my inline reply. regards, ajoy 4.3.1 Current access router operation ------------------------------------- Is it necessary to include the capabilities of current AR in AR-AR CARD request message? AJOY-> Yes. it helps please see my reply below. If the data in a current AR for a CAR is not up to date, it still does not mean that the data for the current AR is not up to date in the CAR. AJOY-> I agree. Including the AR-AR CARD reply automatically in the CARD request creates unnecessary load in both routers when they authenticate / encrypt extra data. AJOY-> Well, it helps to reduce the number of messages processed by CAR in the long run. Processing extra new messages may be more expensive than adding some additional processing overhead in the existing messages. This optimization also adds extra complexity to the protocol, and it is not clear to me whether it is worth it. AJOY-> I am not clear how it will complicate the implementation of CARD protocol.