Re: [MEXT] Any Comments fordraft-jeyatharan-mext-flow-tftemp-reference-00

["Mohana Jeyatharan" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Frank,

Please see below.

BR,
Mohana 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frank Xia [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 1:05 AM
> To: Mohana Jeyatharan; 'mext'
> Subject: RE: [MEXT] Any Comments 
> fordraft-jeyatharan-mext-flow-tftemp-reference-00
> 
> Hi Mohana
> 
> Hi Mohana
> 
> I don't think draft-ietf-mext-flow-binding-06.txt need any 
> changes.

Yes, correct.  We are not proposing any changes to
draft-ietf-mext-flow-binding-06.txt.
In the above draft, the format of the traffic selector can be anything.
I mean the TS field can have any value.
One is the binary format with a specific value for TS field.  What we
are proposing is the TFT reference as another format for the traffic
selector sub option. That is all.

 However, I think it is very useful to document the 
> integration of them. 

Yes, some of the integration with the flow binding mechanism is captured
in the flow-tftemp-reference draft.  However, there is no change to the
flow binding mechanism.  Just use the TFT ref traffic selector suboption
when creating flowbinding rules.
> 
> BR
> Frank
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mohana Jeyatharan [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 7:17 PM
> To: Frank Xia; mext
> Subject: RE: [MEXT] Any Comments
> fordraft-jeyatharan-mext-flow-tftemp-reference-00
> 
> Hi Frank,
> 
> Please see below.
> 
> BR,
> Mohana 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Frank Xia [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 10:48 PM
> > To: Mohana Jeyatharan; 'mext'
> > Subject: RE: [MEXT] Any Comments
> > fordraft-jeyatharan-mext-flow-tftemp-reference-00
> > 
> > Hi Mohana
> > 
> > Please check my replies again..
> > 
> > BR
> > Frank
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mohana Jeyatharan [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 7:27 PM
> > To: Frank Xia; mext
> > Subject: RE: [MEXT] Any Comments
> > fordraft-jeyatharan-mext-flow-tftemp-reference-00
> > 
> > Hi Frank,
> > 
> > Thank you for some quick comments.  
> > 
> > Please see some replies below.
> > 
> > BR,
> > Mohana
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Frank Xia [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 6:19 AM
> > > To: Mohana Jeyatharan; 'mext'
> > > Subject: RE: [MEXT] Any Comments
> > > fordraft-jeyatharan-mext-flow-tftemp-reference-00
> > > 
> > > Hi Mohana
> > > 
> > > I had a quick glance.
> > > It is interesting. 
> > > 
> > > Some clarification questions are below:
> > > 1)is TFT(Traffic Flow Template)implementation
> > >   mandatory for 3GPP mobile node?
> > >   I think so from your document.
> > 
> > If 3GPP network entitiy decides per flow QoS treatment needed for a 
> > given prefix/HoA, then dedicated bearers will be created by network 
> > and such TFTs will be assigned.  In such a case, the 3GPP 
> MN needs to 
> > understand the TFT when sending data.  Thus I would say it is 
> > mandatory for the MN. However, it is not mandatory to 
> create dedicated 
> > bearers. If there are no dedicated bearers and TFT, the MN will not 
> > have TFTs stored in it.
> > Frank=>I am sure about your answer, yes or not. 
> > " If 3GPP network entitiy decides per flow QoS treatment 
> needed for a 
> > given prefix/HoA ..".  I assume per flow treatment is a 
> prerequisite 
> > for 3GPP when we talk about flow binding topic. So, I think your 
> > answer is yes.
> 
> Yes, the answer is yes. TFT feature for MN is mandatory.
> 
> > > 2)is it has the same descriptive capability as
> > >   draft-ietf-mext-binary-ts-04.txt?
> > >   I think so.
> > The TFT reference traffic selector suboption is different from the 
> > binary TS traffic selector sub option. In TFT Ref sub 
> option, the data 
> > field only carries the bearer ID to describe the packet filters.
> > Multiple packet filters are collapsed to a single bearer ID. 
> > Moreover, when there is change in packet filters tied to 
> TFT, a simple 
> > refresh flowbinding would do as described in the TFT-ref 
> draft.  Thus 
> > there are some subtle differences between the two.
> > 
> > 
> > However, in highlevel both are describing flows when setting filter 
> > rules.
> > But, what we are highlighting here is that, when TFTs are 
> present at 
> > the 3g bearer filtering table, and the MN wants such flows 
> to be sent 
> > via 3G path, a simple reference to the TFT is an easier way to set 
> > flow binding rules.
> > Frank=>Did you contribute this to 3GPP?  IMHO, TFT is a 
> better way to 
> > incorporate into current 3GPP system.
> 
> The TFT reference as a new traffic selector sub-option format 
> needs to be specified in IETF.  Following that it can be used 
> in 3GPP. Yes, using a TFT to describe the flows in flow 
> binding operation is useful in 3GPP scenarios as highlighted 
> in the draft. 
>  
> > > 
> > > BR
> > > Frank
> > > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > On Behalf
> > > Of Mohana Jeyatharan
> > > Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 7:53 PM
> > > To: mext
> > > Subject: [MEXT] Any Comments for
> > > draft-jeyatharan-mext-flow-tftemp-reference-00
> > > 
> > > Hi all,
> > > 
> > > During last IETF-77 MEXT session we could not present the ID 
> > > draft-jeyatharan-mext-flow-tftemp-reference-00 and get the direct 
> > > feedback from the WG.
> > > 
> > > Would really appreciate if we can get some comments on this
> > draft and
> > > general opinion about this draft from the WG.
> > > 
> > > The mechanism highlighted in this draft is a simple
> > mechanism to set
> > > flow binding rules for flows that have descriptors present
> > at the HA
> > > and MN, using a reference to the TFT as a flow descriptor.
> > > 
> > > Thanks.
> > > 
> > > BR,
> > > Mohana
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > MEXT mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>