Re: reminder: clarification on tunnel entry-point address in "draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2-04.txt"

[Alex Conta <aconta@txc.com>]

Pekka,

Pekka Savola wrote:

> [...] 
>
> The proposition was to add language something like "the implementation
> MUST verify that a manually the source address, if manually
> configured, is an address of the node" to section 3.5.
> [...]

I am surprised to see here an interpretation of what I suggested (and 
Erik N. supported), which is not accurate, or correct. Originally, and 
as a primary importance, I (and Erik N.) referred to the following text 
in Section 3.5:

              Source Address:


                IPv4 address of outgoing interface of the encapsulator
                or an administratively specified address as described
                below.

and suggested replacing it with the following text:

              Source Address:

                  IPv4 address of the tunnel entrypoint (encapsulator).

to which in your message of 8/12/04 6:12pm, you replied to me, with CC 
to Erik N., Bob G., and David K., that it it would be OK (see excerpt 
from your reply)

--- beginning of excerpt
>Suggested text:
>>
>>        Source Address:
>>
>>              IPv4 address of the tunnel entrypoint (encapsulator).
>> 		
>>


Would be OK, I guess.

-----end of excerpt

This is confusing. You seem to have changed your mind. Do you agree or 
not to this change?

This suggested text above is fixing a fundamental protocol problem, that 
I and Erik N. pointed you to, which makes no sense wasting time arguing 
if you maintain your position to agree to the change.

The secondary importance text at the end of Section 3.5, that need 
changing, and to which I made suggestions, as well as some text in 
Section 3.6, which turns out at a careful reading to be confusing, can 
be discussed separately.

Regards,
Alex

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature