Subject: Re: [Mobike] Issue list status & plea for help

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 00:23:44 -0500

OK.

The fact that we are only discussing tunnel mode is not explicitly
mentioned until section 3.4 in this document.  There is one place in the
introduction that mentions it, but only in passing.  Everywhere else, it
is inferred and/or assumed.  Although it is said explicitly in section
3.4, but that is after we have read a lot of text without knowing this.
Also, it is called limitations, rather than scope.  I suggest that you
move this 3.4 to section 2. and call it scope.  

Here is suggested text:

2. Scope

The scope of this document is limited to tunnel mode as the base version
of the MOBIKE protocol.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Some nits:

MOBIKE allows both parties to have several addresses, and there are
   up to N*M pairs of IP addresses that could potentially be used.  The
   decision of which of these pairs to use has to take into account
   several factors.  First, the parties have may preferences about which
   interface should be used, due to performance and cost reasons, for
   instance.  Second, the decision is constrained by the fact that some
   of the pairs may not work at all due to incompatible IP versions,
   outages somewhere in the network, problems at the local link at
   either end, and so on.

How about changed text indicated by *:

MOBIKE allows both parties to have *multiple points of attachment each
represented by an IP address*, and there are
   up to N*M pairs of IP addresses that could potentially be used *for
the tunnel endpoints*.  The
   decision of which of these pairs to use has to take into account
   several factors.  First, the parties have *many* preferences about
which
   interface should be used, due to performance and cost reasons, for
   instance.  Second, the decision is constrained by the fact that some
   of the pairs may not work at all due to incompatible IP versions,
   outages *delete somewhere* in the network, problems at the local link
at
   either end, and so on.

-- Maureen

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 10:21 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Mobike] Issue list status & plea for help

I have now marked all the issues on the issue list as closed.  
If we re-visit any of the topics later (which hopefully we don't),
they will get new issue numbers.

A couple of pleas for help from the issue list maintainer:

- If you have many comments, please send them in several
  messages; this makes it much easier to track their status!  
  Of course, not every typo needs a separate message, but if 
  you have more than, say, 50 lines of comments, please split
  them.

- Be constructive: just pointing out problems or saying "I didn't
  understand Section X.Y" is not forbidden, but it's much better
  to say what you would like to see changed in the document.  Do
  you want a technical change in the protocol, or just rewording
  the description? Adding new functionality to the protocol?
  Or perhaps you don't want any changes, but are just asking a 
  question about the protocol? (sometimes it's not easy to tell 
  these apart)

Best regards,
Pasi
_______________________________________________
Mobike mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.machshav.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mobike
_______________________________________________
Mobike mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.machshav.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mobike

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 08:35:03 -0700

Maureen,

Yes, I noticed this as well.

I'd suggest including it even earlier, in the abstract:

    ...MOBIKE allows hostst to update the (outer) IP addresses associated 
with IKEv2 and **tunnel mode** IPsec Security Associations...

            jak