Subject: [AAA-WG]: Issue 89: Editorial comments - Mobile-IP draft-06

From: Thomas Panagiotis-PTHOMAS1 <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 12:54:46 -0500

Hi Martin,

I have a question with one of your comments in issue #89 (which is now in
the resolved list).

>> ...
>> 8) Section 2.4, I don't think it is very clean, with regards to the 
>> specification, to expect that the HA will be responsible of forwarding
>> the Session-Timeout, the Authorization-Lifetime, the MIP-FA-to-MN-Key
>> and the MIP-FA-to-HA-Key AVPs in the HAA. When I see those attributes 
>> in the HAA, I always have to remind me that they are meaningless to the 
>> HAA, but only meaningful to make easier the conversion of the HAA into
>> a AMA in the AAAH, which I consider not very useful anyway, since the
>> AAAH still needs to check that they have been included properly. Well,
>> my opinion is that we should remove them from there, since they are
>> meaningless to the AAAH that receives the HAA. 
> 
> ok. A few revisions of the base protocol base, less state was required on 
> the AAAH. Nowadays, though, I agree that the AAAH can easily keep this 
> state information (or add it to Proxy-State if it really wants to).
> ...

Don't we need to have the Session-Timeout AVP in the HAR/HAA messages
to refer to the session created between the AAAH and the HA?

Thanks,

-Panos