On Thursday 12 June 2008, Tony Cheneau wrote: > Hello, 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 ? Right, this is the same format. I think there's value in using the same format for options with similar content -- regularity is hardly bad when it comes to coding. I'd be fine to change that format if we change the SEND Signature format. However that would have some drawbacks w.r.t. backward compatibility. > 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 ? You're right. That's another typo. Thanks. --julien > 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 _______________________________________________ CGA-EXT mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cga-ext
