> -----Original Message----- > From: Christian Vogt [mailto:chvogt@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 12:53 PM > To: Henderson, Thomas R > Cc: Jeffrey Hutzelman; ietf@xxxxxxxx; secdir@xxxxxxx; David > Ward; Gonzalo Camarillo > Subject: Re: secdir review of draft-ietf-hip-mm-04.txt > > > > The following rules seem appropriate: > > - a HIP host SHOULD send a NOTIFY error if an unsupported Locator > > Type is received in a LOCATOR parameter, when such Locator > > is also declared to be the Preferred locator for the peer > > - otherwise, a HIP host MAY send a NOTIFY error if > > an unsupported Locator Type is received in a LOCATOR parameter > > Shouldn't the transmission of the NOTIFY be a "MUST" in the > special case > where the LOCATOR parameter contains /only/ locators of > unsupported type? > The preferred locator would in this case remain the same as before, > meaning that it would be in DEPRECATED status. > The main problem in using NOTIFY as a MUST is that the NOTIFY parameter is defined as being optional in the base spec. I think that if we agree that we want a MUST, we will have to define a more explicit and reliable way to reject the locator, such as a LOCATOR_FAILURE parameter in the UPDATE. Tom _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf