Re: Revised I-D: draft-ietf-mipshop-cga-cba-03.txt

Hi Behcet,

thanks for reading the draft!

> I could not understand why you have HA in Figs. 1 &
3? I understand 
> why in Fig. 2. Can you please shed some light into
this?

We included the HA in all figures so that the figures are
more
comparable.  As you say, we need the HA in figure 2 due to
the HoA test.
 Having the HA in that figure, we thought it would be good
to also
include the home registration messages (BU/BA with HA). 
This in turn
means that the home registration should appear in all
figures, hence the
HA is in all figures.

> Also, there seems to be no Fig. 4 in the draft and it
jumps to Fig.
> 5.

My bad:  I used xml2rfc and accidentally wrapped an artwork
with
"figure" tags.  The figure tags did not include a
caption, so the
mistake was not that obvious.  Thanks for pointing this out.
 Will fix
this in the next revision, or in AUTH48.

Best,
- Christian

-- 
Christian Vogt, Institute of Telematics, Universitaet
Karlsruhe (TH)
www.tm.uka.de/~chvogt/pubkey/



Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
> Hi Christian, I could not understand why you have HA in
Figs. 1 & 3?
> I understand why in Fig. 2. Can you please shed some
light into this?
>  Also, there seems to be no Fig. 4 in the draft and it
jumps to Fig.
> 5.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> --behcet



_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
Mipshopietf.org
https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop