Re: [Dime] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-korhonen-dime-mip6-feature-bits-01

Julien Bournelle <julien.bournelle@gmail.com> Thu, 09 July 2009 07:28 UTC

Return-Path: <julien.bournelle@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16CF33A67DD for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 00:28:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.569
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.569 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.029, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f27UTH6xW7uY for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 00:28:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-bw0-f225.google.com (mail-bw0-f225.google.com [209.85.218.225]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F6F728C14C for <dime@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 00:28:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by bwz25 with SMTP id 25so3337781bwz.37 for <dime@ietf.org>; Thu, 09 Jul 2009 00:28:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Orn8+Box9NYDu3BstbbhE4HGni683dBxudlcX/sWAR8=; b=EnsEtxI9zg7aLZ4FbM5XedWSiGAKLxILJb7pLHKf9+fVHXPA0oJ2QAw2L6rKvTlIAr aPqJ+xx/Ijuitcb7X3wnYcfUiblUAUo7X+I6TQHxuQtOzfBExzIoMRodE7JaetPprV5P mHZfcVj3gzD61wIpeoBODotSV1/CAI5UoXzcs=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=MW1ARrQHkSVpGSINNwx/3xu6HmXrgplb9sd6oEuVlwptBdYqRDXI6WYIUkrysHxi+F 0leuQlwwvyDDNSCRJZOxm7WKptqkWicDCsCeWm1rshewGa5zj1uWcjwJyyHW/BFi+fj3 +B8qbFREhMD1CL3riVWa+M/CyfBs76OBqiiYU=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.204.58.9 with SMTP id e9mr439532bkh.23.1247124537990; Thu, 09 Jul 2009 00:28:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AE94132F-1C99-4E10-9B36-2FD7E0AA0C99@gmail.com>
References: <20090610092653.601A33A6E07@core3.amsl.com> <1CE00542-32BF-4344-884C-CCDC763FA853@gmail.com> <605467.44209.qm@web111405.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <0E6B99B1-F87F-47FD-9C3B-9417AFED18E5@gmail.com> <5e2406980907080053s27947281i495195c060b10976@mail.gmail.com> <121392FB-EC60-4651-B60C-9FB4E65CE5CB@gmail.com> <5e2406980907080503w1eb1ad03o89a4601375c74ecb@mail.gmail.com> <AE94132F-1C99-4E10-9B36-2FD7E0AA0C99@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 09:28:57 +0200
Message-ID: <5e2406980907090028i5ba97861m77cc03dd7e3e0a83@mail.gmail.com>
From: Julien Bournelle <julien.bournelle@gmail.com>
To: jouni <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001636c5bcc513df4e046e40cffd"
Cc: dime@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dime] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-korhonen-dime-mip6-feature-bits-01
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 07:28:36 -0000

Hello,

On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 9:03 PM, jouni <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Julien,
>
> On Jul 8, 2009, at 3:03 PM, Julien Bournelle wrote:
>
>  Hi jouni,
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 10:24 AM, jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> Hi Julien,
>>
>> Well, the IANA allocation rules were crafted so that other SDOs could
>> easily allocate their own flags once they document flag usage (the document
>> can be any publicly available proper spec/document, not just RFC). Having
>> said that, allocating flags "ahead" without relevant documentation which
>> properly describe the use and need is not really what we want. And having
>> said that, I basically self-conclude most flags the current I-D proposes are
>> not needed ;)
>>
>>
>>  not sure to catch your conclusion ! :)
>>
>
> ;)  Meaning.. SDOs could (should) go and allocate feature vector flag bits
> on their own directly from IANA, once they have appropriate documentation..
> without getting involved in IETF WG level process.


 ok, I see. Maybe we could add a little section explaining this.


>
> Regarding the proper documentation, I realize that
> draft-korhonen-dime-mip6-feature-bits does not really do a good job at
> explaining "use & need" for some flags it aims to allocate.


i'll re-read the current draft and provide comments ASAP.

regards,

 Julien



>
>
>
> JOuni
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>       Jouni
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jul 8, 2009, at 10:53 AM, Julien Bournelle wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>>  one question maybe is if it is the IETF or IANA which will be used to
>> register specifc SDO flags ?
>>
>>  Maybe we could have a specific range for such allocation ?
>>
>>  Any comments ?
>>
>>  Julien
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 8:05 AM, jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Could you point me at the relevant Wimax documents regarding the flags
>> below?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>      Jouni
>>
>>
>> On Jul 7, 2009, at 5:39 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi Jouni,
>>  Can you please add
>> IP4_IN_IP6_TUNNELING_SUPPORTED flag (which could be defined as:
>> IP4_IN_IP6_TUNNELING_SUPPORTED (0x0000000000000100)
>> )
>>
>> The need for this came out in a contribution we made to WiMAX NWG's
>> IPv4/v6 Transition subteam on the scenarios for DSMIP.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Behcet
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
>> To: dime@ietf.org
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 4:55:36 AM
>> Subject: [Dime] Fwd: New Version Notification for
>> draft-korhonen-dime-mip6-feature-bits-01
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I have updated the additional feature bits draft. I did remove some stuff
>> so
>> that the draft now only reserves MIP6-Feature-Vector flag bits and nothing
>> more.
>> I'll forward the draft soon to RFC editor so if anyone has comments,
>> please be
>> quick :)
>>
>> Cheers,
>>  Jouni
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>> From: IETF I-D Submission Tool
>> Date: June 10, 2009 12:26:53 PM GMT+03:00
>> To: jouni.nospam@gmail.com
>> Subject: New Version Notification for
>> draft-korhonen-dime-mip6-feature-bits-01
>>
>>
>> A new version of I-D, draft-korhonen-dime-mip6-feature-bits-01.txt has
>> been
>> successfuly submitted by Jouni Korhonen and posted to the IETF repository.
>>
>> Filename:    draft-korhonen-dime-mip6-feature-bits
>> Revision:    01
>> Title:        Diameter MIP6 Feature Vector Additional Bit Allocations
>> Creation_date:    2009-06-10
>> WG ID:        Independent Submission
>> Number_of_pages: 5
>>
>> Abstract:
>> During the Mobile IPv6 Split Scenario bootstrapping the Mobile IPv6
>> Home Agent and the Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting
>> server may exchange a set of authorized mobility capabilities.  This
>> document defines new mobility capability flags that are used to
>> authorize per Mobile Node route optimization, Multiple Care-of
>> Address and user plane traffic encryption support.  Furthermore, this
>> document also defines a capability flag of indicating whether the
>> Home Agent is authorized to act as a stand alone Virtual Private
>> Network gateway.
>>
>>
>>
>> The IETF Secretariat.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> DiME mailing list
>> DiME@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> DiME mailing list
>> DiME@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
>>
>>
>>
>>
>