Re: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-dmm-distributed-mobility-anchoring-13
CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO <cjbc@it.uc3m.es> Fri, 01 November 2019 12:06 UTC
Return-Path: <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB4E312084F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 05:06:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=it.uc3m.es
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 BEUjZHoB1Hk6 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 05:06:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x52b.google.com (mail-ed1-x52b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52b]) (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 ED0A2120838 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 05:06:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x52b.google.com with SMTP id l25so7372554edt.6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 01 Nov 2019 05:06:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=it.uc3m.es; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=otQ2qta23d5CE2J5ryVSg7VFYG92+EYt+USCS+/NA8I=; b=cpNHU0BP+HGEA0Y1LNfuZdjb0WwqWCptgrk23avvNTsw2aWq6mYmsU4HDdQXek0RNG cDww3zbGVIZIKxofE63weMp0EFwzq9CmXIt5jnxX/q8dCuIDzIqD8jnE5T10xk15xA2n hTBoeaRW5T504rRtuvKA/hm0e3TxDeV10tyn/0Rvxjw0ct97NwLk7FQzFioHt3tw1Mfn OHczmBeeIgSFQ9bOQOI8i0vlNsGfpXdyjZTbLv2o90+Bjvq2ym43XDKfTXq81wwRDBAP BYYFgj1hQiL5ty99VYrt0mG+0Si5tJ2d5ltecKpSG9oxnJKtA6WCJGfvEG/Xty+rZG1H bgzg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=otQ2qta23d5CE2J5ryVSg7VFYG92+EYt+USCS+/NA8I=; b=q6vmTChnRjQrry9J52Nt5L3DHBFus6e9BtWPi5Ehyv7BTS6I+kF/7OUvY/YTM4DHWQ Hy+v9FaZUTEblQDJwpaD0UK5xjc/82qrc9t6SSO5NkX33Z4UNrch6iz/6GhgFIpeYo6v UN8tf4AAlJ7Rkeru0xUk8AtEGUGyNc5GU4gni9s34DJEVsvUge07ofWj3wfcpgEVUc+v +JViFecTiNx2+DkRJz4VvfHEsE5s409tIcSgluSo84I4c/+GlqvpbtdPxvu16lW9O7R0 DNwn+j1pL0fzDFMnA9lQ137y81hhlRuSnWKCrFuB5uXSlJoyccvY/hNNy4SUVP3uq94s Q+zg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUS5MH3ORQ9McbHAFyDSwmhqyeES/NZPxet0/1m+GdcRm+WmttP uBzVHlLE/ZRHhMG5h947b4HlyY0nPEA+QitRxEBAlw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxkRLMpQuBtOOTQYHg6T5NpbGP5D5lUxldQuLofiB1b87hPfnNA6audNVw75cakpSVEf4Qs+t+XgAMxaqyn9fQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:c9d9:: with SMTP id hk25mr9461852ejb.74.1572609966195; Fri, 01 Nov 2019 05:06:06 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <157103982375.24746.491736148532050112@ietfa.amsl.com> <CALypLp-7wcYB1j6qU_CawTCgU2m2EU-XJTONO3f3KF=r4_tozg@mail.gmail.com> <CAAK044T+7wjgmK=G8SVndoEny8EWsDkKq9V+rJPhAYp_adxaLg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAK044T+7wjgmK=G8SVndoEny8EWsDkKq9V+rJPhAYp_adxaLg@mail.gmail.com>
From: CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2019 13:05:49 +0100
Message-ID: <CALypLp_qK4GJW9f4_KAOiZPZ3X2jaS1UqzwiYgSbmJ1AwzXMTQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-dmm-distributed-mobility-anchoring-13
To: Yoshifumi Nishida <nsd.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: tsv-art@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dmm-distributed-mobility-anchoring.all@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, dmm <dmm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000067f7a2059647ca59"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/eVP3X9yE8RRlMvTrixTnVQSIeKs>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2019 12:06:12 -0000
Dear Yoshi, We've just posted a new revision (-14) addressing all your comments. Thanks! Carlos On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 9:38 AM Yoshifumi Nishida <nsd.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Carlos, > Thanks for the response. I put my comments in lines. > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 4:20 AM CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO < > cjbc@it.uc3m.es> wrote: > >> Dear Yoshifumi, >> >> Thanks a lot for the review. Please check inline below for some comments >> from my side. >> >> On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 9:57 AM Yoshifumi Nishida via Datatracker < >> noreply@ietf.org> wrote: >> >>> Reviewer: Yoshifumi Nishida >>> Review result: Almost Ready >>> >>> This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review >>> team's >>> ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written >>> primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the >>> document's >>> authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to >>> the IETF >>> discussion list for information. >>> >>> When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this >>> review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC >>> tsv-art@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review. >>> >>> Summary: This document is almost ready for publication as an >>> informational RFC, >>> but it will be better to clarify the following points. >>> >>> 1: The examples shown in the draft look behave conveniently. >>> For examples, in the figure 3 case, the flow is somehow terminated >>> before >>> the MN moves and is re-initiated after the movement has finished. >>> However, I >>> believe there should be the cases where applications don't aware of >>> network >>> changes and transmit data while migrating, which may cause packet >>> drops, >>> delays and timeouts, etc. I think this draft should clarify the >>> treatments >>> of these cases. Is it out of scope of the draft? Or, do some >>> components >>> generate ICMP messages to give some hints to the applications, or >>> provide >>> buffering features to mitigate the side effects? >>> >> >> [Carlos] I guess you mean Figure 4, right? In that figure, we try to >> explain what would happen if there is no actual mobility support, meaning >> that a communication flow does not need such mobility support. This might >> happen because the flow stops before the movement (as shown in the figure) >> or also because the application can deal with the mobility itself (no >> mobility at the IP layer). We don't explicitly mention that second case >> because it is not in the scope of the draft (IP mobility). We can better >> clarify the scope in the text. >> > > Sorry for confusion. Yes, the data flow is explained in Figure 4. > What I wanted to mention was how the flow can stop it without mobility > support. If there's no mobility support, the app should not be able to know > when network change will happen. So, I am thinking that in some cases, the > flow may not able to stop before the movement. > I am guessing this case would be a major case than the case described in > the draft. > Or, is there any available approach here? > >> >> >>> >>> 2: Page 8: >>> "A MN will need to choose which IP prefix/address to use for each flow >>> according to whether it needs IP mobility support or not." >>> >>> -> It seems to me that the draft implicitly suggests the use of >>> draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility here. >>> If so, I think it would be better to state more explicitly. Or, >>> do we >>> have other options? >>> >> >> [Carlos] We can definitely add an explicit reference to >> draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility, but I'd mention it as an example. I don't >> have another option in mind, but we can leave it open. >> > > Yes, referring as an example is fine. I just thought if this approach can > be used, then it might be better to explain it explicitly. > >> >> >>> 3: Page 10: >>> "the initial anchor remains the anchor and forwards traffic" >>> >>> -> could be "anchor remains and the anchor.."? >>> >> >> [Carlos] Maybe "mobility anchor remains playing that role and forwards >> traffic"? >> > > Works for me. Thanks! > -- > Yoshi > -- Special Issue "Beyond 5G Evolution": https://www.mdpi.com/journal/electronics/special_issues/beyond_5g
- Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-dmm-distrib… Yoshifumi Nishida via Datatracker
- Re: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-dmm-dis… CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO
- Re: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-dmm-dis… Yoshifumi Nishida
- Re: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-dmm-dis… CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO