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

[Qin Wu <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Russ:
Should I address these comments before IESG telechat?
My response may be limited due to business trip in my next week. Here is my proposed changes to version 07.

1.Section 5.1, 3rd paragraph, last sentence.
OLD text:
"
MAG1 can verify
   whether both MAGs are under the same LMA by comparing the addressese
   of LMA1 and LMA2.  MAG1 then requests the address of MAG2 from LMA2
   and uses that address to setup the localized routing path between
   itself and MAG2 via a Proxy Binding Update (PBU)/Proxy Binding
   Acknowledgement (PBA) message exchange [RFC5213].
"
NEW text:
"
If  MAG1 knows that MN1 and MN2 belong to the same LMA, it requests the address of MAG2 from LMA2
   and uses that address to setup the localized routing path between
   itself and MAG2 via a Proxy Binding Update (PBU)/Proxy Binding
   Acknowledgement (PBA) message exchange [RFC5213], Note that whether MN1
 and MN2 belong to the same LMA can be verified by looking up the binding cache entries corresponding to
   MN1 and MN2 and comparing the addresses of LMA1 and LMA2.
"
2. Section 5.2, Last Paragraph, 1st sentence
OLD text:
"
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. 
"
New text:
"
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 the same LMA in accordance with the verification principle specified in the section 5.1.
"
3. Section 5.1, Last Paragraph
OLD text:
"
.....instead setting up a localized routing path
   directly between itself and LMA2 via localized routing signaling.
"
New Text:
"
... instead initiating LMA1 and LMA2 exchange to trigger corresponding LMA to setup binding entries
on the corresponding MAG for localized routing and configuring MAG1 and MAG2 to use the same encapsulation mechanism as that
being used for PMIP tunnel between MAG and LMA without special configuration or dynamic tunneling negotiation between MAGs.
Alternatively special configuration for other encapsulation mechanism or dynamic tunneling negotiation may be used to override
the default tunneling.

"

Regards!
-Qin
________________________________________
发件人: Russ Housley [[e-mail]]
发送时间: 2012年2月13日 5:22
到: Qin Wu
Cc: General Area Review Team; [e-mail]; Elwyn Davies
主题: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-07

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

Russ


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" <[e-mail]>
>> To: "Qin Wu" <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: "General Area Review Team" <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
>> 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" <[e-mail]>
>>>> To: "General Area Review Team" <[e-mail]>
>>>> Cc: <[e-mail]>
>>>> 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
>>>>> < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art