[16NG] Fwd: Fw: AD review of draft-ietf-16ng-ps-goals
"Junghoon Jee" <junghoon.jee@gmail.com> Tue, 11 September 2007 02:44 UTC
Return-path: <16ng-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IUvjy-0003gm-8T; Mon, 10 Sep 2007 22:44:38 -0400
Received: from 16ng by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IUvjx-0003gg-7X for 16ng-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Sep 2007 22:44:37 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IUvjw-0003gY-6o for 16ng@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Sep 2007 22:44:36 -0400
Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.187]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IUvju-0003za-LC for 16ng@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Sep 2007 22:44:36 -0400
Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id d3so1122998nfc for <16ng@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Sep 2007 19:44:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; bh=IIt6hdxv3lhJ1AofJq3vuhie9fH//tHlSOzyLL3hvI0=; b=fwkPUI5eVcQ6HGgJZ+KVsRFEQSbGbkUMfrnO54ecGGz4E+fRwBgE+Hz+IccE9P2vGKVuoEWmb6iIzwptTpm9CzmwWMnBvqKuUwNQsKaI/w9U2Db1LWJiY1WvNpPIZXdWEKAbpeZqHCaNZMConMOFGMKyj0m+O6ssMMJG53RirkQ=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=Xgt9aLXeMCX7+up7YhZCiM59YBmu9fdgsly3JV5JB4ZnTZoHZANOawkng3UiA1I5Ilx94rQ+FKEDWrz8et8e275KN6krNWeMbU6OA7aRSgLZDXJx63CU7BRYZydhb/4QJeWNFMwWdyE+aXS/nKm6sNQQ18WGoJcA4Bza62Z+7vY=
Received: by 10.86.23.17 with SMTP id 17mr4210079fgw.1189478673623; Mon, 10 Sep 2007 19:44:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.86.76.17 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Sep 2007 19:44:33 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <d47344770709101944j25979d4ag8d262dc4de5d6b06@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 11:44:33 +0900
From: Junghoon Jee <junghoon.jee@gmail.com>
To: 16ng@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <001d01c7f41d$88e47150$6b70fe81@etriabcb8a0047>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <001d01c7f41d$88e47150$6b70fe81@etriabcb8a0047>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 8a85b14f27c9dcbe0719e27d46abc1f8
Subject: [16NG] Fwd: Fw: AD review of draft-ietf-16ng-ps-goals
X-BeenThere: 16ng@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: 16ng working group discussion list <16ng.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng>, <mailto:16ng-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/16ng>
List-Post: <mailto:16ng@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:16ng-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng>, <mailto:16ng-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1648977365=="
Errors-To: 16ng-bounces@ietf.org
----- Original Message ----- From: "Junghoon Jee" <jhjee@etri.re.kr> To: "Jari Arkko" <jari.arkko@piuha.net>; < draft-ietf-16ng-ps-goals@tools.ietf.org>; <16ng@ietf.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 11:41 AM Subject: Re: AD review of draft-ietf-16ng-ps-goals > Dear Jari, > Thank you for the review and valuable comments. > Please find inline replies. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jari Arkko" <jari.arkko@piuha.net> > To: <draft-ietf-16ng-ps-goals@tools.ietf.org>; <16ng@ietf.org> > Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 12:40 AM > Subject: AD review of draft-ietf-16ng-ps-goals > > >> >> Hi all, >> >> I have made my AD review of this document. The document is >> in relative good shape and I fully agree with the goals. However, >> there were a few substantial issues and a number of editorial >> issues that I discovered. >> >> Please discuss these issues and/or revise the document >> accordingly. Also, I would like to ask the chairs to initiate >> a review in IEEE 802.16 through our liaison. >> >> Also, from my review of the archives I did not see enough >> review of this document. I also did not see actual discussion >> about this document recorded in the minutes of last three >> IETFs. When you send the document back to me, please >> ensure that you have at least two additional reviews >> from WG members. >> >> Substantial: >> >>> This Ethernet like link model assumes that underlying >>> link layer provides the equivalent functionality like Ethernet, for >>> example, native broadcast and multicast. It seems feasible to apply >>> the 802.16's Ethernet CS to configure this link model. However, >>> there exists a discrepancy between the assumption from the Ethernet >>> like link model and the 802.16's MAC feature which is connection- >>> oriented and not providing multicast and broadcast connection for IP >>> packet transfer. >> >> Why would this be any different traditional wired & switched ethernet >> case? There is no native multicast over a set of wires... > > Right, current texts are little bit misleading just mentioning the fundamental problems. > Please check the following amended texts and suggest any enhancement. > > " > In the second Ethernet like link model, all SSs under an AR reside on the same IP Subnet. > This also applies when SSs are connected with different BSs. > This Ethernet like link model assumes that underlying link layer provides the equivalent functionality like Ethernet, for example, native broadcast and multicast. > It seems feasible to apply the 802.16's Ethernet CS to configure this link model. > *** > However, the 802.16's MAC feature is still connection-oriented not providing multicast and broadcast connection for IP packet transfer. > There needs mechanisms like IEEE 802.1D to realize multicast and broadcast to realize Ethernet like link model for Ethernet CS. > Moreover, the frequent IP multicast and broadcast signaling within the IP subnet like Ethernet needs to be avoided not to wake up sleep/idle [ IEEE802.16e] SSs > ***. > " > >>> Blocking ARP or the address resolution of NDP needs to be implemented >>> by SS itself in an implementation manner. >> There is no mention of such blocking in the 16ng's IPv6 >> document (ipv6-over-ipv6cs). Would blocking NDP packets >> break IPv6 NUD? > > It could be dealt by the separate thread. > >>> Because MAC address is not used for transmission in case of IP CS, it >>> is unclear whether source link layer address need to be carried in >>> the RS (Router Solicitation). The RS may need to have source IP >>> address specified so that the RA (Router Advertisement) can be sent >>> back. This may require the completion of the link local address >>> configuration before sending an RS. >> Why would you need the source address? This is the point-to-point >> link model... > > Yes, there is no need to include the source link layer address because here the link model is point-to-point. > Therefore, the Router Discovery part for 5.2 Point-to-Point Link model for IP CS: Problems would be the following: > > " > -Router Discovery: > BS needs to send the RA with separate IP prefix in unicast manner for each SS explicitly to send periodic router > advertisements in 802.16 Networks. > " > >>> If there >>> exists multiple ARs (so the default routers), it is unknown if the >>> NUD is required if an AR is not serving any 802.16 MAC connection. >> >> How can you have multiple devices at the end, if this is a >> point-to-point link? > > Right, there also does not exist multiple ARs. > Therefore, the Neighbor Unreachability Detection (NUD) part for 5.2Point-to-Point Link model for IP CS: Problems would be the following: > > " > - Neighbor Unreachability Detection (NUD): > Because SS always see an AR as the next hop, the NUD is required only > for that AR. Also the requirement of NUD may depend on the existence > of a connection to the BS for that particular destination. > " > > >> >> Editorial: >> >>> sublayer (CS) is at the uppermost of the MAC that is responsible for >> >> ... uppermost part ... >> >>> assigning transmit-direction SDUs (originating from a higher layer >> >> Expand the acronym SDU > > Okay. >> >>> [I-D.thaler-intarea-multilink-subnet-issues]. >> >> RFC 4903. >> >>> Blocking ARP or the address resolution of NDP needs to be implemented >>> by SS itself in an implementation manner >> >> This probably should read: Blocking ARP or NDP address resolution packets >> needs to be implemented by SS itself in an implementation specific >> fashion. > > Thank you, it will be amended following the suggestion. > >> >>> To acquire that address, the >>> address resolution should be performed throughout conventional >>> broadcast and multicast based ARP or NDP. However, this multicast >>> and broadcast packets results in the problem of waking up the sleep/ >>> idle [IEEE802.16e] SSs. >> Yes, but you should probably say ... if not filtered (e.g., RFC 4541), these >> multicast and broadcast packets ... > > Thank you. > >> >> Also, s/this/these/ > > Yes. > >> >>> 2. Requirements >>> >>> The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", >>> "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this >>> document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] . >>> >> >> Remove this section and reference if the keywords are not used. > > Right. it will be removed. > > Best Regards, > Junghoon > >> Jari >> >>
_______________________________________________ 16NG mailing list 16NG@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng
- [16NG] AD review of draft-ietf-16ng-ps-goals Jari Arkko
- [16NG] Re: AD review of draft-ietf-16ng-ps-goals Syam Madanapalli
- [16NG] Re: AD review of draft-ietf-16ng-ps-goals Jari Arkko
- RE: [16NG] AD review of draft-ietf-16ng-ps-goals Daniel Park
- [16NG] Fwd: Fw: AD review of draft-ietf-16ng-ps-g… Junghoon Jee
- [16NG] Re: AD review of draft-ietf-16ng-ps-goals Junghoon Jee
- Re: [16NG] AD review of draft-ietf-16ng-ps-goals Jari Arkko