1. Click to edit Master title style Click to add subtitle © 2008 Wichorus Inc. All rights reserved. CONFIDENTIAL - DO NOT DISTRIBUTE rfc3775bis Issues July 28, 2008 charliep@wichorus.com

2. Click to edit Master title style List of issues #1 Last Accepted SQN #2 Removing DHAAD mechanism #4 Remove references to site-local addresses #7 DSMIPv6 BU format and RFC 3775 #8 Application using the care-of address #9 Simultaneous Mobility #10 The usage of "HA lifetime" #11 De-registration when returning home #12 BErr sent by HA too, not only by CN #13 Home Link Detection #14 References to Bootstrapping #15 BRR sent by HA too, not only by CN #16 HA behaviour upon MN returning Home

3. Click to edit Master title style Minor note/suggestion about issue description Document owner (me) “owns” the result of resolving the issue (buck stops here) Issue owner “responsible” for checking to see if I have correctly summarized the issue and the discussion from the mailing list “defect” – something wrong with the document “enhancement” – something that should be done to improve the document Suggestions for best use of issue tracker welcome!

4. Click to edit Master title style Issue #1: Last Accepted SQN (defect) [Ahmad Muhanna ] Current specification requires the mobile node to discard Binding Acknowledgement (BA) with a sequence number out of range Problem: Then there’s no way for the mobile node to get resynchronized Proposal: Mandate mobile node to use the supplied sequence number in authenticated BA (Status 135)

5. Click to edit Master title style Issue #2: Removing DHAAD mechanism (defect) [Jean-Michel Combes Suggestion: Now that we have RFC 5026, expunge DHAAD 80 email messages, many points of disagreement Is not important for PS submission of rfc3775bis Proposed modification to

6. Click to edit Master title style Issue #4: Remove site-local addresses (defect) [George Tsirtsis ] Problem: site-local addresses have been deprecated, but rfc3775bis still makes reference to them Solution: change site-local addresses to ULAs This seems almost like a no-brainer, but then again maybe people are also dissatisfied with ULAs. Proposal: just make the simple changes for PS, unless ULAs also become deprecated

7. Click to edit Master title style Issue #7: DSMIPv6 BU and RFC 3775 (enhancement) [Tero Kauppinen tero.kauppinen@ericsson.com]tero.kauppinen@ericsson.com Problem: IPv4 address in encapsulating header can never match the source address (IPv6 CoA) of BU Proposal 1: Require an IPv4 mapped IPv6 address in the BU header Proposal 2: view DSMIPv6 as a document updating the behavior specified in rfc3375bis, punt Proposal 2 seems to have better support (?)

8. Click to edit Master title style Issue #8: Application using the CoA (enhancement) [Julien Laganier ] Observation: after RFC 3775 was published, the IETF has subsequently published RFC 5014 to enable a mobile application to use the care-of address as a source address Proposal: cite RFC 5014 as informational

9. Click to edit Master title style Issue #9: Simultaneous Mobility (defect) [Ashutosh Dutta Problem: signaling for RO can fail if mobile node and correspondent node move simultaneously Proposal: fall back to reverse tunneling – but, when?  Right away?  After one try?  After MAX_RETRIES?  Retry in parallel with reverse tunneling?

10. Click to edit Master title style Issue #10: The usage of "HA lifetime" (defect) [Ryuji Wakikawa ] Problem: does MN expunge home agent address when its lifetime expires? Does this on whether the HA address was statically configured? Question: is there a default value for the HA address lifetime? Answer 1: a matter for local configuration Answer 2: expunge the HA address

11. Click to edit Master title style Issue #11: De-registration returning home (defect) [Vijay Devarapalli When returning home, mobile device MUST deregister Why was the original text “SHOULD”? But what if the mobile does not want to use the home link? (e.g., multi-homed device) (then, it didn’t actually “return home”??) Or, perhaps we ought to keep the “SHOULD” to encourage future innovation? Or, perhaps add text explaining why “SHOULD”?

12. Click to edit Master title style Issue #12: BErr sent by HA too (defect) [Alexandru Petrescu Is it possible for HA to send BErr? For unrecognized mobility headers Seeming consensus on easy text change

13. Click to edit Master title style Issue #13: Home Link Detection (defect) [Suresh Krishnan Problem: need to specify how mobile node detects whether it has returned to its home network Proposal: add text from draft-krishnan-mext-hld

14. Click to edit Master title style Issue #14: References to Bootstrapping (enhancement) [Vijay Devarapalli vijay@wichorus.com]vijay@wichorus.com Problem: base document was written before there were specifications available for dynamic assignment of a home agent to a mobile node Proposal: add informative citation for RFC 5026, ??draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-integrated-dhc-05

15. Click to edit Master title style Issue #15: BRR sent by HA too (enhancement) [Ahmad Muhanna ] Should HA be allowed to send BRR? Proposal: it could increase reliability of MN registration Objection: This could be considered new functionality and thus not appropriate for rfc3775bis

16. Click to edit Master title style Issue #16: HA behaviour when MN returns Home (defect) [Pascal Thubert ] Problem: if mobile node reboots, it may not remember to reclaim control of its home address when it detects it is on the home network. Proposal: let MN use DAD or oDAD, and update existing local neighbor caches by setting ‘O’ bit. Concern: maintain backwards compatibility