Re: [Mip4] WGLC for draft-ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base-02.txt

[Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Hans Sjöstrand wrote:
> I support the advancement of this document to the IESG with a request
>  for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC when the following
> comment is addressed. - The issue about foreign agent care of mode
> must be clarified. As it is now, it's ambiguous whether foreign agent
> care of mode is supported with the mechanisms in this document.
> Further, if it is supported, if it's mandatory double tunneling or
> something like draft-ietf-mip4-nemov4-fa that applies. Sorry for
> being late

Hasse, ChristopheJ, thanks for the follow-up.

How about this introductory text:
> This document describes protocol extensions to Mobile IPv4 as per 
> [RFC3344] and its update [2], to enable support for Mobile Networks.
> This draft addresses mainly the co-located Care-of Address mode.
> Foreign Agent Care-of Address mode (with 'legacy' Foreign Agents, RFC
> 3344) are supported but without optimization, double encapsulation
> being used.  For an optimization of this mode, the gentle reader is
> directed to [1].

Instead of:
> This document describes protocol extensions to Mobile IPv4 
> ([RFC3344]) to enable support for Mobile Networks.  This draft 
> addresses only co-located Care-of Address mode (not Foreign Agent 
> Care-of Address mode, for which the gentle reader is directed to 
> [1]).

And this (check last 3 lines):
> This document specifies an additional tunnel between Mobile Router's
> Home Address and the Home Agent.  This tunnel is encapsulated within
> the normal tunnel between the Care-of Address (CoA) and Home Agent.
> In Foreign Agent CoA mode, the tunnel between the Mobile Router and
> Home Agent is needed to allow the Foreign Agent to direct the
> decapsulated packet to the proper visiting Mobile Router.  However,
> in Collocated CoA mode, the additional tunnel is not essential and
> could be eliminated because the Mobile Router is the recipient of the
> encapsulated packets for the Mobile Network.

Instead of (check last 3 lines):
> This document specifies an additional tunnel between Mobile Router's 
> Home Address and the Home Agent.  This tunnel is encapsulated within 
> the normal tunnel between the Care-of Address (CoA) and Home Agent. 
> In Foreign Agent CoA mode, the tunnel between the Mobile Router and 
> Home Agent is needed to allow the Foreign Agent to direct the 
> decapsulated packet to the proper visiting Mobile Router.  However, 
> in Collocated CoA mode, the additional tunnel is not essential and 
> can be eliminated because the Mobile Router is the recipient of the 
> encapsulated packets for the Mobile Network.

Finally, if the following paragraph disturbs then I can remove it 
altogether:
>    For optimization, the Home Agent SHOULD only encapsulate the packet
>    with the tunnel header (source IP address set to Home Agent and
>    destination IP address set to CoA) for Collocated CoA mode.

Is there any other text occurence that disturbs?

Alex


> 
> best regards /// Hasse
> 
> 
> On 2007-09-19 20:20, McCann Peter-A001034 wrote:
>> This message announces a 2-week working group last call on:
>> 
>> "Network Mobility (NEMO) Extensions for Mobile IPv4" 
>> draft-ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base-02.txt
>> 
>> The last call will end at 24:00 UTC on Wednesday, October 3rd 2007.
>> 
>> 
>> This document describes a protocol for supporting Mobile Networks 
>> between a Mobile Router and a Home Agent by extending the Mobile
>> IPv4 protocol.  A Mobile Router is responsible for the mobility of
>> one or more network segments or subnets moving together.  The
>> Mobile Router hides its mobility from the nodes on the mobile
>> network.  The nodes on the Mobile Network may be fixed in
>> relationship to the Mobile Router and may not have any mobility
>> function.
>> 
>> Extensions to Mobile IPv4 are introduced to support Mobile
>> Networks.
>> 
>> A URL for this Internet-Draft is: 
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base-02.txt
>> 
>> 
>> Please respond to this working group last call:
>> 
>> * If you have no comments on the draft, and support its
>> advancement, simply respond with a line containing something like
>> 
>> "I support the advancement of this document to the IESG with a 
>> request for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC."
>> 
>> If you have comments, please use a line similar to the one above, 
>> and supplement this with your comments.
>> 
>> 
>> * If you *don't* support its advancement, respond with a line 
>> containing something like the following, supplemented by your 
>> comments -
>> 
>> "I don't support the advancement of this document to the IESG with 
>> a request for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC, for the 
>> following reasons:" ...
>> 
>> Please direct all replies to the Mobile IPv4 mailing list, 
>> [e-mail].
>> 
>> -Pete & Henrik
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________


-- 
Mip4 mailing list: [e-mail]
    Web interface: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4
     Charter page: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mip4-charter.html
Supplemental site: http://www.mip4.org/