[Dime] Review of draft-korhonen-dime-pmip6-03.txt
"Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <hannes.tschofenig@nsn.com> Thu, 07 August 2008 10:38 UTC
Return-Path: <dime-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6ACA83A6B23; Thu, 7 Aug 2008 03:38:07 -0700 (PDT)
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 28A663A6B23 for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Aug 2008 03:38:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.321
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.321 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-3.437, BAYES_00=-2.599, FRT_PROFIT2=10.357, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 JZizo1Ud0mTe for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Aug 2008 03:38:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (demumfd001.nsn-inter.net [217.115.75.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E819B3A6A18 for <dime@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Aug 2008 03:38:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from demuprx017.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.56]) by demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m77AccwX010693 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <dime@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Aug 2008 12:38:38 +0200
Received: from demuexc022.nsn-intra.net (webmail.nsn-intra.net [10.150.128.35]) by demuprx017.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m77Acbv3018088 for <dime@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Aug 2008 12:38:38 +0200
Received: from demuexc025.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.32.12]) by demuexc022.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 7 Aug 2008 12:38:38 +0200
Received: from FIESEXC007.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.0.15]) by demuexc025.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 7 Aug 2008 12:38:38 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 13:37:58 +0300
Message-ID: <C41BFCED3C088E40A8510B57B165C16246A716@FIESEXC007.nsn-intra.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Review of draft-korhonen-dime-pmip6-03.txt
Thread-Index: Acj4eaiG9YMPTYCERouPYKcXMzjY6Q==
From: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <hannes.tschofenig@nsn.com>
To: dime@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Aug 2008 10:38:38.0072 (UTC) FILETIME=[C047C780:01C8F879]
Subject: [Dime] Review of draft-korhonen-dime-pmip6-03.txt
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/pipermail/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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org
A few review comments. In the abstract you write: " Rather than defining a completely new set of attributes or a new Diameter application this specification leverages the work that has already been done for the Mobile IPv6 bootstrapping. " This sentence is somewhat misleading since you define a Diameter application. Figure 1 is helpful but I think you could point out that you are actually describing two different "interfaces" in this document. I initially did not got that point since you referred also to the Diameter Mobile IPv6 boostrapping work where we separated them into 2 documents. Hence, I would enhance the figure with something like: +--------+ | HAAA & | Diameter +-----+ | Policy |<--(1)--->| LMA | | Profile| +-----+ +--------+ | <--- LMA-Address ^ | | // \\ +---|------------- //---\\----------------+ ( | IPv4/IPv6 // \\ Proxy Mobile IPv6 ( | Network // \\ ) +---|-----------//---------\\-------------+ | // \\ Diameter // <- Tunnel1 \\ <- Tunnel2 (2) // \\ | |- MAG-Address1 |- MAG-Address2 | +----+ +----+ +---->|MAG1| |MAG2| +----+ +----+ | | | | [MN1] [MN2] Legend: (1): LMA <-> HAAA interaction is described in Section 6 (2): MAG <-> HAAA interaction is described in Section 5 * I was also lacking sementic of the PMIP6-DHCP-Address AVP a bit. How does the information flow look like? * MIP6-Agent-Info AVP The description currently does not provide enough information why this AVP is needed. What happens when an entity receives this AVP? Why would one send it? I also wonder whether it wouldn't make sense to create a new AVP if the semantic is sufficiently different. * MAG-to-HAAA: You might want to make it explicit in the text that you do not define a new Diameter application for this interface. The LMA to HAAA section starts very similar but defines a new Diameter application. Both sections say "This document re-uses the Diameter NASREQ [6] and the EAP [7] applications". While this is correct the outcome is very different. I would also shorten the subject header a bit. Something like "MAG-to-HAAA Interface" and "LMA-to-HAAA Inferface" should be sufficient. The following text seems a bit fuzzy to me: " The Diameter response messages MAY contain Framed-IPv6-Prefix and/or Framed-IPv4-Address AVPs. For example a local Diameter proxy MAY add those in order to advertise locally available prefixes and addresses as well [16]. It is also possible that PMIPv6 mobility support is not allowed for a subscription. In this case, a MAG may still provide normal IP connectivity to the MN using, for example, local address pools. " What is the semantic of the Framed-IPv6-Prefix in relationship to the other addresses being defined in this document? * LMA-to-MAG The text at the beginning of the sentence is repeated again in Section 6.2. You write: " The identity SHOULD be the same as used on the MAG to HAAA interface, but in a case those identities differ the HAAA MUST have a mechanism of mapping the MN identity used on the MAG to HAAA interface to the identity used on the LMA to HAAA interface. " In what cases are they different? You write: " If the PBU contains the MN interface identifier option, the Calling- Station-Id AVP SHOULD be included in the request message containing the received interface identifier. Furthermore, if the PBU contains the Service Selection mobility option [18], the Called-Station-Id AVP SHOULD be included in the request message containing the received service identifier. " Why do you overload the Called-Station-Id? Are those the only two cases, i.e., is it MUST contain either interface id or service identifier? In the introduction you say that this is only used for authorization, see: " A new Diameter application is needed for the LMA to HAAA interface when authorizing Proxy Binding Updates and subscriber's mobility service session. " Does this mean that you set the request to 'authorize-only'? * AVP Occurrence Table section I would define separate AVP flag tables for the two interfaces and for the commands. For example, in Section 6.2 you define this new application; do you expect certain AVPs to be understood by the receiving end? Ciao Hannes _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
- [Dime] Review of draft-korhonen-dime-pmip6-03.txt Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
- Re: [Dime] Review of draft-korhonen-dime-pmip6-03… jouni.korhonen
- Re: [Dime] Review of draft-korhonen-dime-pmip6-03… jouni.korhonen