[Mip6-firewall] update firewall drafts

[QIU Ying]

Hi, Suresh

Sorry I have not got your yesterday email about the updated version, but 
luckily I got the one you re-sent.

The reasons I sent the email to mext maillist are:
1. The modification is a response for the feedback from last mext meeting.
2. To avoid the scene of reading documents on site again due to no other 
people following these documents :-)

The new version is OK for but the issues I mention in previous email. Please 
refer to my response in other thread in mext list.

Regards
Qiu Ying

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Suresh Krishnan" <suresh.krishnan at ericsson.com>
To: "QIU Ying" <qiuying at i2r.a-star.edu.sg>; "marcelo bagnulo" 
<marcelo at it.uc3m.es>; "Julien Laganier" <julien.IETF at laposte.net>
Cc: <mip6-firewall at zeke.ecotroph.net>
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 8:26 PM
Subject: RE: update firewall drafts


Hi Qiu,
  I had already updated the drafts and sent them to the firewall design
team list yesterday for review before submission. I am not sure why you
are sending this mail to the mext list since this is what the firewall
team list is for? Take a look at the drafts that I send out and let me
know what you think.

Thanks
Suresh

-----Original Message-----
From: QIU Ying [mailto:qiuying at i2r.a-star.edu.sg]
Sent: April-17-08 7:26 AM
To: Suresh Krishnan; marcelo bagnulo; Julien Laganier; mext
Subject: update firewall drafts

Hi, folks

It seems it is time to update the firewall drafts. My suggestions is
below:

Regarding vendor draft:
I agree with Henrik comments: the time out of 420 seconds (7 minutes) is
too long for the binging update signal processing. The pinholes for the
mobility head type 1~6 (HoTI/HoT, CoTI/CoT, BU/BA) are no longer
necessary when they get the return messages (HoT, CoT, BA),
respectively. So 30 seconds should be enough. But as for the pinhole for
data packets, it is necessary to associate its lifetime to the ones of a
binding cache entry.  Hence, the last sentence in section 4 could move
to the end of section 5.

Regarding admin draft:
The section 4.2 and 6.3 are talking about IKE negotiation. It is the
generic security issue. So these sections could be removed from the
document.

Section 5.5 deals with the tunneled issue between 2 fixed IP addresses
(HA and CN). So it should be removed, too.

There are some minor editor errors in the draft:
In section 6.2, please change the sentence "described in section 5.1" to
"described in section 4.1"
In Figure 1, please change "Home Agent of A" to "Home Agent".
In figure 2, please change "CN C" to "CN".

Regards
Qiu Ying


------------ Institute For Infocomm Research - Disclaimer
-------------This email is confidential and may be privileged.  If you
are not the intended recipient, please delete it and notify us
immediately. Please do not copy or use it for any purpose, or disclose
its contents to any other person. Thank
you.-------------------------------------------------------- 


------------ Institute For Infocomm Research - Disclaimer -------------This email is confidential and may be privileged.  If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it and notify us immediately. Please do not copy or use it for any purpose, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you.--------------------------------------------------------