Re: [DMM] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-dmm-mag-multihoming-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

["Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mirja,

Thank you for your quick feedback. Please see inline …



On 8/17/17, 6:12 AM, "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <[e-mail]> wrote:

<snip> .. keeping only the open issues.

>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 3) This document does not really normative specify the use of the newly
>>> defined
>>> options. It only gives an examples but it does not specify normatively
>>>any
>>> actions that need to performed on receipt of these options. How does
>>>the
>>> MAG
>>> know if the LMA does not support Multipath binding? An LMA that does
>>>not
>>> implement this spec will not send back an error message. Why are there
>>>two
>>> different options? What happens if one of the options is present in the
>>> Proxy
>>> Binding Update but not the other?
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> This is a good point. There is an implicit assumption that the LMA
>> behavior is consistent with the behavior when dealing with any unknown
>> options. 
>> We can put a note that the PBU will rejected with error code 128.
>
>That's good. Are you supposed to resend without the new options if you
>received 128? And again what happens if only one option is present?

I will take care of this. Will add considerations on both LMA/MAG behavior
when there is version incompatibility. Will post a new rev with these
considerations. But, thank you; we definitely overlooked this part.




>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> COMMENT:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 
>>> Please also clarify the definitions of Interface Label and Binding
>>> Identifier
>>> as requested by the gen-art review (Thanks Robert!)
>>> 
>> 
>> Interface label is a static field, Ex: “LTE-Interface”, “my blue
>> interface”. Traffic policy is tied to this static label,
>> 
>> HTTP Flow: Use LTE-Interface, if not available, use “WiFI-Interface”.
>> Label is tied to a policy; which the MAG and LMA will translate it bind
>> the flow to a dynamically created tunnel using the CoA from that
>>interface.
>> 
>> Binding identifier is what is dynamically generated and using to
>>identify
>> a specific binding on the LMA.
>
>I think this comment was on the way it is described in the draft. Maybe
>the wording can be further clarified there. Here is the original text
>from the genart review of Robert Sparks:


I have looked at both the definitions and I agree it needs to some
clarification. I will fix this.




>
>"* I still find the definitions of Interface Label and Binding Identifier
>confusing.
>   I suspect they _both_ need to be carefully rewritten to make sure they
>are
>   definitions of the terms, and not descriptions of the interactions of
>the two
>   fields. Why is the Interface Label definition talking so much about
>binding?
>   As currently written, that last sentence of the Binding Identifier
>   definition says  the document says the mobile access gateway assigns
>   a single unique binding identifier for each of its interfaces. „
> 
>
>Thanks!
>Mirja
>
>
>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>