Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review for draft-ietf-netlmm-pmip6-ipv4-support-12

["Spencer Dawkins" <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Ryuji,

Thanks for explaining - SHOULD NOTs will be fine (with me).

Spencer


> Hi Spencer,
> 
> Thanks for the detailed comment.
> 
> On 2009/05/18, at 12:02, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> 
>> Hi, Sri,
>>
>> (Thanks to everyone for the quick responses - I can still remember  
>> the review without having to re-read it ;-)
>>
>>> If the request is rejected with a specific reason, there is not point
>>> for the requester to continue to send the messages for the exact same
>>> service. Its ok to resend the message when some thing changes. Ex: An
>>> administrative action allowing the user for that service.
>>> So, the "SHOULD NOT" is with the goal to avoid unnecessary messaging.
>>> Otherwise, the requester will recv the same error code.
>>
>> I'm sorry, I'm not asking the question clearly - I'm asking why  
>> these SHOULD NOTs aren't MUST NOTs. Is there a reason why the  
>> requestor would resend the messages for the same service, without  
>> changing anything?
>>
>> If there's a reason, SHOULD NOT would be appropriate. If there's not  
>> a reason, perhaps MUST NOTs would be more appropriate.
> 
> The "MUST NOT" is too strict in this case.
> As Sri mentioned, it is just for optimization by skipping unnecessary  
> messaging.
> 
> After operational action is taken by LMA and error is fixed, MAG  
> should be able to retry the registration of the home address which
> was previously rejected with  NOT_AUTHORIZED_FOR_IPV4_HOME_ADDRESS.
> The retry timing depends on operation and administrative matter. It  
> might be the next registration or 1 hour later..
> That's why we just put SHOULD NOT here.
> 
> We will work on the other comments.
> 
> regards,
> ryuji
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Spencer
>>
> 
>