IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [MEXT] One question on draft-ietf-mext-nemo-mib

Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@cisco.com> Tue, 13 January 2009 21:46 UTC

Return-Path: <mext-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: mip6-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-mip6-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 523923A6B24; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 13:46:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF65228C19A for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 13:46:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.528
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.528 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.071, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cE2dN7xmyWWw for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 13:46:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7DB928C155 for <mext@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 13:46:36 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.37,261,1231113600"; d="scan'208";a="122248361"
Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Jan 2009 21:46:22 +0000
Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com (sj-core-4.cisco.com [171.68.223.138]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n0DLkMEw016645; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 13:46:22 -0800
Received: from irp-view13.cisco.com (irp-view13.cisco.com [171.70.120.60]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n0DLkMoY005051; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:46:22 GMT
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 13:46:22 -0800
From: Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@cisco.com>
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <496D0AB8.2080006@piuha.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.63.0901131346020.24676@irp-view13.cisco.com>
References: <496D0284.7070000@piuha.net> <Pine.GSO.4.63.0901131331590.24676@irp-view13.cisco.com> <496D0AB8.2080006@piuha.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1166; t=1231883182; x=1232747182; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim2002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=sgundave@cisco.com; z=From:=20Sri=20Gundavelli=20<sgundave@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[MEXT]=20One=20question=20on=20draft-ie tf-mext-nemo-mib |Sender:=20; bh=j9MfAMZPFRdtoD8I+s8pA2NkFs/Hjyz0VeLfRMcsfEg=; b=mmXW4qw33Z0rypTIVIFRGTF4Uhz4I9M6bzhiWUx8E+s2RuGhomn8IyyCOF n4TwoLtKF0W5qoUHFy/UZXLrivTNOWW+JUiSX5ITI9B/vUg+0HbUKEcQTjhe +87jmsoE7+;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=sgundave@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; );
Cc: draft-ietf-mext-nemo-mib@tools.ietf.org, "mext@ietf.org" <mext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MEXT] One question on draft-ietf-mext-nemo-mib
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: mext-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org

Hi Jari,

Sure. Will update the description.


Thanks
Sri

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009, Jari Arkko wrote:

> Ok. Maybe this could be made clearer in the next revision.
>
> Jari
>
> Sri Gundavelli wrote:
>>  Hi Jari,
>>
>>  nemoMrPrefixRegMode is a RW object, for controlling the
>>  registration mode. The other object is in the BUL entry,
>>  reflecting the requested mode in a given registration.
>> 
>>
>>  Thanks
>>  Sri
>> 
>> 
>>
>>  On Tue, 13 Jan 2009, Jari Arkko wrote:
>> 
>> >  There was one question on this draft when I re-reviewed it:
>> > 
>> >  Why is the mode needed twice below:
>> > 
>> >     nemoMrRegistrationGroup  OBJECT-GROUP
>> >          OBJECTS {
>> >                    nemoMrBLMode,
>> >                    ...
>> >                    nemoMrPrefixRegMode,
>> >     ...
>> > 
>> >  Is this a mistake, or am I missing something?
>> > 
>> >  In any case, I have sent the draft forward to IETF Last Call.
>> > 
>> >  Jari
>> > 
>>> _______________________________________________
>> >  MEXT mailing list
>> >  MEXT@ietf.org
>> >  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>> > 
>> 
>> 
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
MEXT@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email