Re: [MIPSHOP-MIH-DT] [Mipshop] WG last call on MIH solution document(draft-ietf-mipshop-mstp-solution-01.txt)

"Telemaco Melia (tmelia)" <> Fri, 15 February 2008 08:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A04A528CE5A; Fri, 15 Feb 2008 00:22:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.452
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.452 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.015, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mEg+uXvab1Ih; Fri, 15 Feb 2008 00:22:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 665563A6958; Fri, 15 Feb 2008 00:22:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C43013A6958 for <>; Fri, 15 Feb 2008 00:22:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id heTv5ncH39fV for <>; Fri, 15 Feb 2008 00:22:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A32293A695E for <>; Fri, 15 Feb 2008 00:22:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 15 Feb 2008 09:23:33 +0100
Received: from ( []) by (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m1F8NX6Q006377; Fri, 15 Feb 2008 09:23:33 +0100
Received: from ( []) by (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id m1F8NCpI005286; Fri, 15 Feb 2008 08:23:30 GMT
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 15 Feb 2008 09:23:18 +0100
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 09:23:34 +0100
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Thread-Topic: [Mipshop] WG last call on MIH solution document(draft-ietf-mipshop-mstp-solution-01.txt)
Thread-Index: AchumVmUF1jUPaxBRVakvKuuwohxBAAgjENwACQHsyA=
References: <> <>
From: "Telemaco Melia (tmelia)" <>
To: "Noll, Kevin" <>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Feb 2008 08:23:18.0978 (UTC) FILETIME=[050BDA20:01C86FAC]
Authentication-Results: ams-dkim-2;; dkim=pass ( sig from verified; );
Subject: Re: [MIPSHOP-MIH-DT] [Mipshop] WG last call on MIH solution document(draft-ietf-mipshop-mstp-solution-01.txt)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: MIPSHOP Media Independent Handover Design Team List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Thanks Kevin,

Your review is very useful. I copy in cc the DT mailing list.
Your comments will be considered in the revision of the document.
If in the meanwhile you think there are fundamental issues we should
address to improve the ID please feel free to post them to the mailing


-----Original Message-----
From: Noll, Kevin [] 
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 7:30 PM
To: Telemaco Melia (tmelia)
Cc: Nada Golmie; Subir Das
Subject: RE: [Mipshop] WG last call on MIH solution


I've been lurking on the MIPSHOP list for a while, but have not been
active in any of the conversations regarding this draft. I also do not
consider myself an expert on the subject matter, so I'm not posting
comments to the list.

I do, however, have some minor comments regarding this draft if you
could forward them to whomever is appropriate.

1. Sect. 3.4 para 1 - spelling error
"exist both in hom enad in visited" should be "exist both in home and in

2. Sect. 4 para 6 - grammar
"The MN could know or not the realm" could be better stated as "The MN
could know or not know the realm" or "The MN might or might not know the

3. Sect. 4 para 6 - spelling
"The dynamic assignation methods " should be "The dynamic assignment

3. Sect. 4 para 6 - clarify
If the MoS is statically configured, why wouldn't the realm also be
statically configured?
Perhaps this clarification isn't important in this "Overview" section,
but I'm just reading it from top to bottom.

4. All sections - spelling/grammar
The singular form of "case" is often used where the plural form should
be used. For example, in Sect. 4.1 para 3, "In case where " should be
"In cases where ". Optionally the singular form could be used if the
phrase is changed to "In the case where".

5. Sect. 4.2 - clarify
What does "and invariant to interface IP addresses" mean?

6. Sect. 5 para. 3 - grammar
"similarly to what " would be better stated as "similar to what is
specified "

7. Sect. 5 para. 4 - clarify
"In case MoS is provided in a remote network other than visited or home
network (scenario S4)" might be better stated as "In the case that MoS
is provided by a third-party network (scenario S4)"

8. Sect. 5.1 para. 1 - grammar
"as shown inFigure 6a." should be "as shown in Figure 6a."

9. Sect. 5.1 para. 1 - technical
I'm not sure I agree with the statement that "Home domains are usually
pre-configured in the MN". On what basis is this assumption made? Even
if it is a correct assumption, shouldn't there be a provision for the
scenario where the MN does *NOT* have the home domain pre-configured?

10. Sect. 5.2 para. 3 - grammar/omission Paragraph ends with "it MUST
use that address in the reverse". I think it  is meant to be "it MUST
use that address in the reverse DNS query".

11. Sect. 5.2 Title - nit-pick
Should "MIN" be "MN"?

12. Sect. 5.2 para. 3 - nit-pick
"Reverse dns query" should be "Reverse DNS query" (DNS should be
capitalized, I think)

13. Sect. 5.2 para. 3 and 4 - technical
Perhaps the authors can clarify what the expected result of the reverse
DNS query should be. It seems to me that it would not be uncommon for
the reverse query (if it doesn't fail altogether) to return a domain
name that is not the same as the desired MoS realm name. For example,
what if the reverse query returns something like, but the MoS realm should be Should the MN attempt to contact the MoS based on the
returned domain name and remove portions of the domain name iteratively
until it successfully finds an MoS?

14. Sect 5.3 para 2 - grammar
"described in section Section 5.1" should be "described in section 5.1" 
(redundant word "section")

15. Sect 5.3 para 3 - grammar
"Similarly to" should be "Similar to"

16. Sect 5.3 para 4 - technical
What is the document references by "[REF TO NEW DOC]"?

17. Sect 5.3 para 11 - grammar/clarify
Does "the MoS information will anyway be sent to the AAAV" mean "the MoS
information will always be sent to the AAAv"?

18. Sect 5.3 - technical
This discovery method seems to assume the use of IPv6 and DHCPv6, but
does not state that assumption anywhere that I can find. Even if this is
the correct assumption, what happens if only IPv4 and DHCPv4 are
available to the MN?

19. Sect. 5.4 - technical
Why can the MoS domain name not be pre-configured?

20. Sect 5.4 para 1 - grammar
"network as inFigure 9" should be "network as in Figure 9"

21. Sect. 5.4 - technical
Would an alternative method of discovering the third party MoS be
similar to that described in sect. 5.3 where the AAAh and/or AAAv are
able to return the third party MoS information?

22. Sect 6. para 1 - clarify
What does this sentence mean? "The client MAY use the DNS discovery
mechanism to discover which transport protocols are supported by the
server in addition to TCP and UDP."

23. Sect 6.1 para 1 - grammar
"between 50 to100 bytes " should be "between 50 to 100 bytes "

24. Sect 6.1 para 1 - nit-pick
"wasted bandwidth utilization" should be "wasted bandwidth" or "poor
bandwidth utilization" ... it doesn't make sense (grammatically) to
"waste utilization".

25. Sect 6.5 para 1 - grammar
"particular transport.." should be "particular transport." (one ending

26. All sections - nit-pick
There is inconsistent use of "MOS" versus "MoS". "MoS" (with lowercase
"o") is defined in Section 2.

27. Sect 6.5 para 2 - technical
Why is the MN not required to support UDP?

28. Sect 7. para 1 - grammar
"MIH user requests for an IS service" should be "MIH user requests an IS
service" or "MIH makes a request for an IS service".

29. Sect. 7. para 2 - technical
There seems to be an assumption of DHCPv4 being in use. Is this correct?
What if DHCPv4 is not available?

30. Sect. 7. para 2 - technical
Is it also be possible for the MN to receive the MoS address in DHCP
initialization? In other words, rather than waiting some period of time
after the MN has obtained its initial IP configuration to send a request
via DHCPINFORM, the MN could request the MoS option request in a
DHCPDISCOVER/DHCPREQUEST and receive the MoS address in the

Of course, this assumes the MN is using DHCP to initialize the IP

31. Sect. 7 para 2 - grammar
"The message arrives to the source" should be "The message arrives at
the source"

32. Sect. 8. para 2 - grammar
"In case where " should be "In the case where "

33. Sect. 8. para 2 - grammar
"of DHCP messages are required" should be "of DHCP messages is required"

34. Sect. 8. para 2 - grammar
"it is recommended that network administrators should use DHCP
authentication option described in [RFC3118], where"
should be
"network administrators should use the DHCP authentication option
described in [RFC3118] where"

35. Sect 8 para 2 - grammar
"This will also protect the denial of service attacks to DHCP server."
should probably be
"This will also protect the DHCP server against denial of service

36. Sect 8. para 3 - grammar
see #32 

37. Sect. 8 para 4 - grammar
"In case where reliable " should be "In the case where a reliable "

38. Sect. 8 para 4 - nit-pick
"a specific > transport" should be "a specific transport"

Kevin A. Noll, CCIE
Sr. Wireless Engineer
Time Warner Cable
13241 Woodland Park
Herndon, VA 20171
o: +1-703-345-3666
m: +1-717-579-4738
AIM: knollpoi

-----Original Message-----
From: [] On
Behalf Of Vijay Devarapalli
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 6:37 PM
To: 'Mipshop'
Subject: [Mipshop] WG last call on MIH solution

Hello folks,

This is to announce a working group last call for the MIH solution
document (draft-ietf-mipshop-mstp-solution). You can find the document
at the following URL.

The last call expires on March 5 2008. (Its a three week last call
because of Internet Draft submission deadlines on the 18th and 25th).

The intended status for this document is Standards Track.

Please post any issues or comments on this document to the MIPSHOP WG
mailing list. In case you have reviewed the document and found no
issues, please send an email saying you support advancing this document.

Mipshop mailing list
This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable
proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject
to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed.
If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken
in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is
strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this
E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently
delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.

MIPSHOP-MIH-DT mailing list