Re: [MEXT] Comments on draft-ietf-monami6-multiplecoa-13

[[e-mail] (Arnaud Ebalard)]

Hi,

Ryuji Wakikawa <[e-mail]> writes:

>> From my perspective, MCoA *is* about binding management.
>
> From the protocol point of view, we have two choices here.
> - having special binding for the HoA destination
> - having flow management to skip RO
>
> Since RO is not so important at this point, we should go with the
> minimal spec which mean the second option.

>From my perspective, RO is important.

> You can put all the possible features in the MCoA, but the draft is
> not discussed in that direction at this stage.

Julien, George, what do you think? Is the feature a simple and logical
addition for the flow-inding draft? If not, I fail to see how it can be
specified in an external document extending both (MCoA and
flow-binding).

> We can always revisit the spec once we "really need" such extension.
>
>>> This is more like flow handling matter which is out of scope in the
>>> MCoA.
>>
>> The thing is that at the moment the MCoA draft is the one providing
>> information about the address to which the traffic is expected to go
>> (via the content of the BID). If you cannot express the direction is the
>
> Before the binding, we need to have additional mechanism to the
> binding selection.
>
>> HoA with what is in the draft, next documents will have to modify the
>> semantic of the BID, instead of simply use it. Or do I fail to
>> understand how you want that to be handled?
>
> We shouldn't change the semantics of BID for this.
> We can't modify the spec after completing WG/IETF/IESG LC, but we only
> accept minor changes for clarification and editorial errors.
> Otherwise, we will get into endless cycles.
>
> Anyway, IMO, your feature can be achieved with the current MCoA spec
> with flow binding.

I'll let the final word to Julien and George.

Cheers,

a+