Hello,
PSO is defined (at least in the format) in the same way as SEND's
RSA Signature Option. This involves that you have again to deduce the
size of the Digital Signature (as stated by a previous mail in this ML)
which isn't that great.
In my opinion, it should be possible to add a "padding lenght field" or
something to specify the size of the Digital Signature in the 16 bits
"reserved field". Am I missing a point here ?
In figure 1, the last message between the ND proxy and Host A indicates
B link-layer (B_LL) in the TLLAO. Shouldn't it be P_LL (the address of
the outgoing interface) instead ?
Thanks in advance and don't hesitate to correct me if I'm wrong.
Best regards,
Tony Cheneau
Le Fri, 6 Jun 2008 17:44:11 +0200,
Julien Laganier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> Folks,
>
> Sorry for the noise, but another update of the Secure Proxy ND
> Support for SEND has been posted. It fixes some misreferences and has
> a filename matching the WG name, thus it should appear in the
> tools.ietf.org page.
>
> The new draft has support for ND proxy as per:
> - ND proxies [RFC4389]
> - MIPv6 Home Agent [RFC3775]
> - PMIPv6 Mobility Access Gateway [I-D.ietf-netlmm-proxymip6]
>
> You can find it there:
>
> <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-krishnan-csi-proxy-send-00.txt>
>
> Comments are still welcome!
>
> --julien
>
_______________________________________________
CGA-EXT mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cga-ext
