[Mip6-firewall] update firewall drafts

[Suresh Krishnan]

Hi Qiu,
  No problems. I did not resend the drafts. They just seem to be delayed
a lot by the mailing list :-) as you can see from the SMTP headers.

Cheers
Suresh
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: QIU Ying [mailto:qiuying at i2r.a-star.edu.sg] 
> Sent: April-17-08 10:56 PM
> To: Suresh Krishnan; marcelo bagnulo; Julien Laganier
> Cc: mip6-firewall at zeke.ecotroph.net
> Subject: Re: update firewall drafts
> 
> 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.--------------------------------------------------------
>