Re: Candidate 2 for Draft 8 for CARD

Hi Jim,

I was going over the CARD protocol, mainly with the piggybacking of
CARD Options using the FMIPv6 proxy messages. For piggybacking
to work, the Type value for CARD Request and CARD Reply Must Not
collide with the "Option-Type" assignments in FMIPv6. Currently, there
are only 3 values assigned in FMIPv6.
The "Seamoby IANA Allocations" draft leaves CARD Request and Reply
with TBD9 and TBD10. I think we should request them to assign
9, 10 or some higher number like that. We do not need to co-ordinate the
Sub-options assignments.

Also, why not send a RtSolPr with the CARD Request Option and
Sub-options and see if the router replies, instead of using a probing
mechanism to discover "piggybacking". I know this is too late, but
a thought nevertheless.

Regards,

-Rajeev





James Kempf wrote:

> I've edited draft-08 for CARD inserting a few suggested changes by Marco and
> Ajoy. Candidate 2 is available at:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/kempf42/draft-ietf-seamoby-card-protocol-08-cand2.txt
>
> Please take a look. If I don't hear anything from anyone by next Fri., Sept.
> 10, I will send the draft to the IESG.
>
>             jak
>
> _______________________________________________
> Seamoby mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby