Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-07

Russ Housley <> Sun, 12 February 2012 21:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FB5721F86A8 for <>; Sun, 12 Feb 2012 13:22:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.521
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.521 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.076, BAYES_00=-2.599, FRT_BELOW2=2.154, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n-j9wbUq8O3T for <>; Sun, 12 Feb 2012 13:22:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CE4C21F868A for <>; Sun, 12 Feb 2012 13:22:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DC56F2407C; Sun, 12 Feb 2012 16:22:20 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YOWI-os7mThY; Sun, 12 Feb 2012 16:22:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E73BF2402B; Sun, 12 Feb 2012 16:22:19 -0500 (EST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Russ Housley <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 16:22:14 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
To: Qin Wu <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: General Area Review Team <>,
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-07
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 21:22:17 -0000

The -07 version of this document is on the IESG telechat this week.  How will the agreed changes be made?


On Feb 8, 2012, at 7:28 AM, Elwyn Davies wrote:

> Hi, Qin.
> Fine - I think all will be good from my point of view if you say a few
> words about linking the MAGs as per your last response belwow.
> Cheers,
> Elwyn
> On Wed, 2012-02-08 at 19:47 +0800, Qin Wu wrote:
>> Hi, Elwyn:
>> Thank for your followup comments, please see my replies inline.
>> Regards!
>> -Qin
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Elwyn Davies" <>
>> To: "Qin Wu" <>
>> Cc: "General Area Review Team" <>; <>
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 6:58 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-07
>>> Hi, Qin.
>>> Thanks for your quick reponse.. some comments in line (I have deleted
>>> the bits agreed),
>>> /Elwyn
>>> On Fri, 2012-02-03 at 12:53 +0800, Qin Wu wrote:
>>>> Hi,Elwyn:
>>>> Thank for your valuable review. please see our replies below.
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>>>> From: "Elwyn Davies" <>
>>>> To: "General Area Review Team" <>
>>>> Cc: <>
>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 9:06 PM
>>>> Subject: Gen-art review of draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-07
>>>>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
>>>>> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
>>>>> <>.
>>>>> Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
>>>>> or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
>>>>> Document: draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-07.txt
>>>>> Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
>>>>> Review Date: 2 February 2012
>>>>> IETF LC End Date: 24 January 2012
>>>>> IESG Telechat date: 16 February 2012
>>>>> Summary:
>>>>> I have a couple of queries/minor issues regarding checking whether LMA1
>>>>> and LMA2 are the same node and some hand waving over the idea of
>>>>> 'localized routing setup/signaliing'.  There are also a few minor nits.
>>>>> Otherwise this is ready for the IESG.
>>>>> [This document missed the normal gen-art last call allocation
>>>>> notification mechanism for some reason - so I didn't realize it was on
>>>>> my allocation till the end of last call and as a result the review is a
>>>>> bit late.]
>>>>> Major issues:
>>>>> None
>>>>> Minor issues:
>>>>> s5.1, para 3 and s5.2, last para:
>>>>> In s5.1:
>>>>>> MAG1 can verify
>>>>>>   whether both MAGs are under the same LMA by comparing the addresses
>>>>>>   of LMA1 and LMA2.
>>>>> Is this guaranteed to work?  Should we care? Or is this just too bad if
>>>>> the LMA has multiple addresses and the two MNs have different ideas?
>>>> [Qin]: In the example described in the s5.1, we don't consider one LMA has two LMA address.
>>>> LMA1 and LMA2 may represent two different mobility entities identified by LMA1 adress and LMA2 adress respectively.
>>>> If LMA1 address is LMA2 address, this just indicate LMA1 and LMA2 are the same mobility entity.
>>>> Even one LMA have more than one LMA address, this still work since MAG can know if these LMA addresses come from
>>>> the same mobility entity based on MN1 and MN2's binding update list.
>>>>> However in s5.2:
>>>>>> In the case where MNs share the same LMA, LR should be initiated by
>>>>>>   LMA1 (i.e.,LMA2) since only LMA1 knows that both MN1 and MN2 belong
>>>>>>   to itself by looking up the binding cache entries corresponding to
>>>>>>   MN1 and MN2. 
>>>>> I am unsure whether these two statements are talking about the same
>>>>> thing - and, if so, are they contradictory?
>>>> [Qin]: No Confliction, See above.
>>> I think this is exactly the point: You give two different (but allegedly
>>> non-conflicting ways) of doing the same thing at two places in the
>>> draft.  From what you say, I infer that you could do either thing in
>>> both cases. If so then it would be better to give the alternatives
>>> together for the first case and refer to the previous comments when the
>>> second case is reached in the text.
>> [Qin]: Good suggestion and will follow this.
>>>>> s5.1, last para:
>>>>>> Figure 4 shows another example scenario, similar to the example
>>>>>>   scenario illustrated in Figure 3, LMA1 does not respond to MAG1 with
>>>>>>   the address of LMA2, instead setting up a localized routing path
>>>>>>   directly between itself and LMA2 via localized routing signaling.
>>>>> I am unsure what 'localized routing signaliing' would involve.  What
>>>>> would the nodes do for this?  Appears to involve some waving of hands.
>>>> [Qin]: LMA1 and LMA2 exchange to trigger corresponding LMA to setup binding entries
>>>> on the correspoding MAG for localized routing and establish localized
>>>> routing path between MAG1 and MAG2.
>>>>> On a slightly broader point, there are a number of places where the
>>>>> phrase 'localized routing setup' (or similar) is used.  It would, I
>>>>> think, be useful to add a few words indicating what is thought to be
>>>>> involved although actually doing it is clearly out of scope of this
>>>>> document.
>>>> [Qin]: Okay.
>>> I am afraid this doesn't really help: You say 'establish localized
>>> routing path between MAG1 and MAG2'. How? Does this imply that the MAG
>>> or some other component will (re-)configure the local packet routing
>>> infrastructure? (Not something I would expect the MAG to be authorized
>>> to do.) Or is this a matter of creating a tunnel?  I think this needs to
>>> be a whole lot more concrete - both ends have to be expecting the
>>> packets and know what to do with them.
>> [Qin]: Yes, your are right. Tunneling between MAG1 and MAG2 should be configured on both MAGs.
>> As default static behavior,tunnel between MAG1 and MAG2 uses the same encapsulation mechanism
>> as that being used for PMIP tunnel between MAG and LMA. In this case, MAG1 and MAG2
>> can start using the same tunneling mechanism without special configuration (e.g.using other 
>> tunnel mechanism that is uniform in the PMIP domain) on MAGs or dynamic tunneling negotiation between MAGs.
>> but special configuration on MAGs or dynamic tunnel negotiation can overide 
>> the default static behavior mentioned above if they are really needed.
>> Hope this clarifies.
>>> Regards,
>>> Elwyn  
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list