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

[Basavaraj Patil <[e-mail]>]

Hi Hesham,

I don't see a need for specifying GRE tunnelling in the current spec.

But I am at a loss to understand what Netlmm is expected to do to specify
GRE tunnelling for DSMIP6. It is best to simply say that the use of GRE
tunnelling in the context of DSMIP6 may be specified separately and leave it
at that.

I am fine with your proposed recommendation with the caveat that you do not
even mention which WG or document specifies the details of GRE tunnelling.

-Raj 

On 1/14/09 6:23 AM, "ext Hesham Soliman" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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