Re: [DMM] [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-bernardos-dmm-pmipv6-dlif-01.txt]

Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <cjbc@it.uc3m.es> Fri, 16 March 2018 15:29 UTC

Return-Path: <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B46F12D892 for <dmm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Mar 2018 08:29:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=it-uc3m-es.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OGgmasFADcUZ for <dmm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Mar 2018 08:29:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x22b.google.com (mail-wm0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B6C312D7E8 for <dmm@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Mar 2018 08:29:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id 139so3787052wmn.2 for <dmm@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Mar 2018 08:29:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=it-uc3m-es.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=message-id:subject:from:reply-to:to:cc:date:in-reply-to:references :organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=kboaIEuiUbIztxDPMbiHace47Y42MP26qSh3VF91DvY=; b=kTDyui1IyEtQn2Hq6WfiCFOSrVniFdGNd9b7MXGBAsDtBFPCZe1mnSLpyodMiGNtYh pG+h6Qr/YOsREvwGNCmVvaiBnMufeYJgT/bv2swHOawOFi7SGeHVMyERTsLGH7o3Swwa CoBrdSccwGz0YmahqncgYwq6HaDdkANm+cxPwiuYKm8tSBzPA5tLc22sN8jT72O+6K2Y MyXSZ5QKE/nlcVfF5g3tQujRaVSc/irzAsDQqA1w1hmEnDnKtZqrXGhFs0Toxd7Y0Fl+ 3qyUs3Bpzk9JHD8Sm6jqRRrbUX2+oem6rPzUUjKl5gIjDOJrilHCIROp0A9Cen1i5vQr AzXg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:reply-to:to:cc:date :in-reply-to:references:organization:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=kboaIEuiUbIztxDPMbiHace47Y42MP26qSh3VF91DvY=; b=Cd2tXTzEGzBbJm3SIVHLgL3nx/uKOmQj4mjjDIukvu0ZemYg8KMH0exV9fUukj4FRw tGrR2D+mnrGpqr/c1bgbgiYk7ngIbGRLhAymnzrJtvvLSuOznSuWKloWGssMAhWJFx7A tW8A8TbNCeU/BVuHM8E/M4i9c5jRabHfrXFeXudwmfmvpxlpKynshp9gRHDLYqlToCgu x2FIZaxXPz6H2QfkMycvc4q37cICwux/hUgyGJlluR2XbTQh/7VVrbNo/RHntXPaYq3X sLmp10+NLyQLKDoxmVLTmbRSx7oYTsxBLp773EPc6RHHDOVlbiWpKFf/XBZ8XQdpvi/Y 46oQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7H3UXn6vjH8AiLYGo785vyxDwe25PEV3QOB/TMrKFOmKhD/igrG jCf0B050NiRlIJKyneVM7V5rNghV
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELum3wBZ7TeHjlKky3GslICismz7zENtTC7VutRXCrfu475cvlvxwOFlkKRwgwuAnxOZ879v/A==
X-Received: by 10.28.199.132 with SMTP id x126mr2112948wmf.16.1521214165412; Fri, 16 Mar 2018 08:29:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from acorde ([2001:720:410:1010:d681:d7ff:fe28:350b]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e53sm10113298wrg.34.2018.03.16.08.29.24 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Fri, 16 Mar 2018 08:29:24 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <1521214163.4118.14.camel@it.uc3m.es>
From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
Reply-To: cjbc@it.uc3m.es
To: Daniel Corujo <dcorujo@av.it.pt>
Cc: "Rahman, Akbar" <Akbar.Rahman@InterDigital.com>, "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <sgundave@cisco.com>, "dmm@ietf.org" <dmm@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 16:29:23 +0100
In-Reply-To: <A9318130-D4B0-42FE-9D0C-BD008B81DE83@av.it.pt>
References: <152001098917.15802.761598349252759319@ietfa.amsl.com> <1520374659.3784.21.camel@it.uc3m.es> <D6C541A3.2ABCF6%sgundave@cisco.com> <BN6PR1001MB21154714AD8A1DDEE2BC094DE7D30@BN6PR1001MB2115.namprd10.prod.outlook.com> <1520874121.6055.195.camel@it.uc3m.es> <A9318130-D4B0-42FE-9D0C-BD008B81DE83@av.it.pt>
Organization: Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.26.3-1
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmm/S8XyrEPS1SPrZOViiIPYSWYwmX4>
Subject: Re: [DMM] [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-bernardos-dmm-pmipv6-dlif-01.txt]
X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group <dmm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmm>, <mailto:dmm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmm/>
List-Post: <mailto:dmm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm>, <mailto:dmm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 15:29:34 -0000

Dear Daniel,

Thanks a lot for your review. Please see some comments inline below.

On Thu, 2018-03-15 at 21:37 +0000, Daniel Corujo wrote:
> Dear Carlos, all,
> 
> Just wanted to point out, and congratulate all authors, on a document
> well done: the partial schemes provide a clear mechanism for
> maintaining connectivity while distributing control and data plane
> aspects. Even though it’s a -01, it already shows good form by
> pointing out the necessary extensions to RFC 5213’s messages (I would
> recommend this part to have it’s own section on the document), 

[Carlos] OK, we'll evaluate this change of structure for -02.

> complemented with an interesting set of annexes showcasing
> implementation details, past experiences and even an on-look on
> future adaptability with edge-based mobility (we can even potentially
> bring some ideas to this discussion ourselves for consideration).
> 
> Some quick typos to be fixed:
> 
> * pg4, 3rd paragraph, line 2, “where the dataplane is only
> distributted”
> * pg5, last paragraph, line 1, “participate”
> * pg8, 2nd paragraph, 6th line from the end, “the CMD sends a PBA”
> * pg10, 1st paragraph, line 3 “reflects”
> * pg11, 1st paragraph, line 4 “possession”
> * pg15, 1st paragraph, 6th line from the end, “interface”
> * pg15, 3rd paragraph, 5th line from the end, “considered”

[Carlos] Thanks. We'll fix them all for -02.

Thanks!

Carlos

> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Daniel Corujo
> Instituto de Telecomunicações - Pólo de Aveiro
> http://www.it.pt
> 
> 
> 
> Watch our VIDEO: https://youtu.be/lI8DnmBnEtU
> Internet Technology Letters Journal is accepting publications: http:/
> /onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)2476-1508
> 
> > On 12 Mar 2018, at 17:02, Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <cjbc@it.uc3m
> > .es> wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Akbar,
> > 
> > Thanks for the review. Comments inline below.
> > 
> > On Mon, 2018-03-12 at 16:41 +0000, Rahman, Akbar wrote:
> > > Hi Carlos,
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Thanks for the updates.  I think the document is in good shape
> > > and
> > > should be adopted.
> > > 
> > > I did have some small suggestions though for the next revision:
> > > 
> > > 1) Abstract - Suggest to remove the last paragraph on
> > > "distributed
> > > logical interface" as it appears to be a detail and is not very
> > > clear
> > > anyways at this point in the document what it implies.  If you
> > > want
> > > to keep the paragraph it should be further clarified as it is not
> > > clear what "a software construct" implies?
> > 
> > [Carlos] OK, well clarify this further.
> > 
> > > 2) Figures 2, 3, & 4  - Suggest to replace use of the "?" in the
> > > ASCII figure construction with another symbol (such as used in
> > > Figure
> > > 1).
> > 
> > [Carlos] This will be fixed in -02.
> > 
> > > 3) Section 3.6 - Need to better clarify in the 1st paragraph text
> > > in
> > > which node the "software construct" of the DLIF is located.  And
> > > also, not clear currently why a node internal software construct
> > > needs to be discussed in a protocol document.  So probably just
> > > my
> > > lack of understanding but points to the section requiring further
> > > clarity.
> > 
> > [Carlos] Will clarify in -02.
> > 
> > Thanks!
> > 
> > Carlos
> > 
> > > 
> > > Best Regards,
> > > 
> > > Akbar
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:sgundave@cisco.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 7, 2018 10:21 AM
> > > To: cjbc@it.uc3m.es; dmm@ietf.org
> > > Subject: Re: [DMM] [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-bernardos-dmm-pmipv6-
> > > dlif-
> > > 01.txt]
> > > 
> > > Thanks Carlos.
> > > 
> > > Folks - Please review the document and post your feedback.
> > > 
> > > https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-bernardos-dmm-pmipv6-dlif-01.txt
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > At IETF100, we polled the WG feedback for adopting this document
> > > and
> > > there was consensus for adopting this document. However, we chose
> > > not
> > > to adopt the document as there were no recent discussions in the
> > > mailer on this document. We therefore request the WG for feedback
> > > in
> > > the mailer. We plan to issue an adoption call post IETF101, but
> > > we
> > > need some feedback and substantial comments.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Dapeng & Sri
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On 3/6/18, 2:17 PM, "dmm on behalf of Carlos Jesús Bernardos
> > > Cano"
> > > <dmm-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of cjbc@it.uc3m.es> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > We have submitted a revised version of our draft addressing the
> > > > comments we got in Singapore:
> > > > 
> > > > - Added some statements about which model from draft-ietf-dmm-
> > > > deployment-models our solution follows (addressing a comment
> > > > received
> > > > from Sri).
> > > > - Added some text relating to draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility
> > > > (addressing a comment received from Danny).
> > > > 
> > > > Additionally, we added some terminology from draft-ietf-dmm-
> > > > deployment-
> > > > models and other minor changes.
> > > > 
> > > > In Singapore we got quite good support of the document. I'd
> > > > like to
> > > > request feedback/reviews from the WG.
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks!
> > > > 
> > > > Carlos
> > > 
> > > [Banner]
> > > This e-mail is intended only for the use of the individual or
> > > entity
> > > to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is
> > > privileged, confidential and/or otherwise protected from
> > > disclosure
> > > to anyone other than its intended recipient. Unintended
> > > transmission
> > > shall not constitute waiver of any privilege or confidentiality
> > > obligation. If you received this communication in error, please
> > > do
> > > not review, copy or distribute it, notify me immediately by
> > > email,
> > > and delete the original message and any attachments. Unless
> > > expressly
> > > stated in this e-mail, nothing in this message or any attachment
> > > should be construed as a digital or electronic signature.
> > > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > dmm mailing list
> > dmm@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
> 
>