80 likes | 171 Views
This draft review evaluates the Mobike protocol design, addressing terminology, scenarios, design considerations, and protocol detail issues. The document outlines potential revisions for clarity and efficiency in the protocol's implementation.
E N D
Mobike Protocol Design draft-ietf-mobike-design-04.txt Tero Kivinen kivinen@safenet-inc.com
Introduction & Terminology • I think the introduction is good enough, and do not require more work. • Do we need the terminology section at all? • Can we get rid of some terms? • Available addresses, locally operational address, path, primary path, preferred address, peer address set • Keep some terms? • Peer, operation address pair
Scenarios • The design draft lists to basic scenarios, where the protocols should work • I do not think we need more work on there, but in case we remove some terms there might be some changes needed here too.
Scope • This section might need more work, especially if we change the terminlogy. • No specific changes to this section yet.
Design Considerations • Some sections had quite big rewrite: • Choosing addresses • NAT Traversal • Some might still need some work • Return routability • IPsec Tunnel and Transport Mode • Should be ok: • Scope of SA changes • Zero address set functionality
Protocol Detail Issues • New or rewritten: • Updating address list • Path testing and window size • Should be ok: • Indicating support for mobike • Message presentation
Additional sections • Do we need more text about following issues (mostly removed in -04): • Simultaneous movement • Old sections rewritten to other sections: • Changing a preferred address and multi-homing support • Storing a single or multiple addresses • Indirect or Direct Indication • Connectivity Test using IKEv2 Dead-Peer Detection • Changing addresses or changing the paths • Add text about issue 71 probably in RR
Summary • Might still need some work (Terminology, scenarios, scope, and perhaps some new sections). • Most of the text should be ready. • Are we ready to WG LC now?