Re: [MEXT] GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review

[Hesham Soliman <[e-mail]>]

> I think what Pasi suggests makes sense and will make things easier for
> whoever defines GRE support.

=> So are you agreeing with removing the TLV completely or with simply
removing the assignment of the GRE? They're two different things.

Hesham

> 
> Not assigning a number for the TLV essentially means that the TLV
> header for GRE is undefined and thus nothing needs to be said about
> it. The whole thing can then be defined in a different spec as needed.
> 
> Regards
> George
> 
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Hesham Soliman
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> I would strongly suggest moving the whole TLV header text to the
>>> separate GRE document.
>> 
>> => Personally, as everyone on the list knows, I was always against including
>> this in the draft, I think it's a really bad idea, but obviously it's not my
>> decision. So let's see what people say. I do agree with this suggestion.
>> 
>>> 
>>> In particular, if you assign a number for GRE in this document,
>>> you either need to describe how it works here, or have a normative
>>> reference to the NETLMM spec.
>> 
>> => My suggestion below was not to assign any numbers in the draft. It was
>> simply to have the TLV header unassigned and let someone else request the
>> assignment and describe how it's used. My ideal preference is the one above
>> (remove it completely) but the suggestion below was a compromise to speed
>> things up.
>> 
>> Hesham
>> 
>>> 
>>> Best regards,
>>> Pasi
>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: ext Hesham Soliman [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>> Sent: 14 January, 2009 14:23
>>>> To: [e-mail]
>>>> Cc: Eronen Pasi (Nokia-NRC/Helsinki)
>>>> Subject: GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review
>>>> 
>>>> Folks,
>>>> 
>>>> Part of Pasi's review for DSMIPv6 was a comment on the lack of
>>>> specification for GRE support in the spec. He said it was vastly
>>>> under-specified, no details on the tunnelling, setting of different
>>>> parts of the GRE header ...etc.
>>>> 
>>>> I suggested that we don't explicitly mention GRE in the spec but we
>>>> keep the TLV tunnelling format and reserve the numbers for NETLMM to
>>>> specify exactly how it will be used in a separate document. I think
>>>> you would agree that this is largely driven by NETLMM needs and we
>>>> shouldn't specify the details in MEXT. Pasi was ok with that.
>>>> 
>>>> Please express your opinion on this soon because Pasi's comments are
>>>> the last comments for the draft and I want to handle them by Monday
>>>> at the latest.
>>>> 
>>>> Please avoid discussing the merits of GRE....etc, the question is:
>>>> 
>>>> Are there any objections to removing explicit references to GRE
>>>> while reserving the numbers in the TLV header for it to be specified
>>>> clearly in NETLMM?
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> 
>>>> Hesham
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> MEXT mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>> 


_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext