Re: [MIPSHOP-MIH-DT] [Mipshop] WG last call on MIH solution document(draft-ietf-mipshop-mstp-solution-01.txt)
Telemaco Melia <telemaco.melia@googlemail.com> Fri, 15 February 2008 21:30 UTC
Return-Path: <mipshop-mih-dt-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-mipshop-mih-dt-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-mipshop-mih-dt-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3DBD28C290; Fri, 15 Feb 2008 13:30:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.356
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.356 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.540, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
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 wz1kZrjgCcot; Fri, 15 Feb 2008 13:30:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84EE03A68CB; Fri, 15 Feb 2008 13:30:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: mipshop-mih-dt@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mipshop-mih-dt@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 691E53A68CB for <mipshop-mih-dt@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Feb 2008 13:30:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
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 bnWOR-npwv9M for <mipshop-mih-dt@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Feb 2008 13:30:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mu-out-0910.google.com (mu-out-0910.google.com [209.85.134.191]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3129D3A685F for <mipshop-mih-dt@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Feb 2008 13:30:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mu-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id i10so754737mue.3 for <mipshop-mih-dt@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Feb 2008 13:31:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.78.35.8 with SMTP id i8mr4348126hui.44.1203111103399; Fri, 15 Feb 2008 13:31:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?192.168.1.36? ( [62.202.87.226]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id i8sm9348163nfh.1.2008.02.15.13.31.40 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 15 Feb 2008 13:31:41 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <47B604D6.5060405@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 22:32:06 +0100
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vijay Devarapalli <vijay.devarapalli@azairenet.com>
References: <47B37F17.5000902@azairenet.com> <2817AF6876483A489EB08E0D28D232550CE46662@PRVPVSMAIL07.corp.twcable.com> <DD0238A0AAE9B74A8F70A91BDF497C2F0342D2AD@xmb-ams-335.emea.cisco.com> <47B5E005.5040709@azairenet.com>
In-Reply-To: <47B5E005.5040709@azairenet.com>
From: Telemaco Melia <telemaco.melia@googlemail.com>
Cc: "Noll, Kevin" <kevin.noll@twcable.com>, mipshop-mih-dt@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [MIPSHOP-MIH-DT] [Mipshop] WG last call on MIH solution document(draft-ietf-mipshop-mstp-solution-01.txt)
X-BeenThere: mipshop-mih-dt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: MIPSHOP Media Independent Handover Design Team List <mipshop-mih-dt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop-mih-dt>, <mailto:mipshop-mih-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/mipshop-mih-dt>
List-Post: <mailto:mipshop-mih-dt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mipshop-mih-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop-mih-dt>, <mailto:mipshop-mih-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: mipshop-mih-dt-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: mipshop-mih-dt-bounces@ietf.org
Sorry about that Vijay. Kevin could you please post to the mipshop ML? Thanks, Telemaco Vijay Devarapalli ha scritto: > Telemaco, Kevin, > > Now that the document is a working group document, discussions > should be held on the MIPSHOP WG mailing list. Not the design > team mailing list. The comments from Kevin, seemed to be > editorial, so its ok in this case. But if there are any > technical discussions they should be on the MIPSHOP mailing list. > > Vijay > > Telemaco Melia (tmelia) wrote: > >> 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 >> list. >> >> >> Cheers >> Telemaco >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Noll, Kevin [mailto:kevin.noll@twcable.com] >> 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 >> document(draft-ietf-mipshop-mstp-solution-01.txt) >> >> >> Telemaco, >> >> 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 >> visited >> >> 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 >> realm" >> >> 3. Sect. 4 para 6 - spelling >> "The dynamic assignation methods " should be "The dynamic assignment >> methods" >> >> 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 >> node1234.dulles.va.myprovider.net, but the MoS realm should be >> myprovider.net? 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 >> period) >> >> 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 >> DHCPOFFER/DHCPACK. >> >> Of course, this assumes the MN is using DHCP to initialize the IP >> parameters. >> >> 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 >> attacks." >> >> 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" >> >> >> >> >> >> --kan-- >> -- >> 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: mipshop-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mipshop-bounces@ietf.org] On >> Behalf Of Vijay Devarapalli >> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 6:37 PM >> To: 'Mipshop' >> Subject: [Mipshop] WG last call on MIH solution >> document(draft-ietf-mipshop-mstp-solution-01.txt) >> >> 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. >> >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mipshop-mstp-solution-01. >> txt >> >> 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. >> >> Vijay >> _______________________________________________ >> Mipshop mailing list >> Mipshop@ietf.org >> http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop >> 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 >> MIPSHOP-MIH-DT@ietf.org >> http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop-mih-dt >> > > _______________________________________________ > MIPSHOP-MIH-DT mailing list > MIPSHOP-MIH-DT@ietf.org > http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop-mih-dt > _______________________________________________ MIPSHOP-MIH-DT mailing list MIPSHOP-MIH-DT@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop-mih-dt
- Re: [MIPSHOP-MIH-DT] [Mipshop] WG last call on MI… Telemaco Melia (tmelia)
- Re: [MIPSHOP-MIH-DT] [Mipshop] WG last call on MI… Vijay Devarapalli
- Re: [MIPSHOP-MIH-DT] [Mipshop] WG last call on MI… Telemaco Melia
- Re: [MIPSHOP-MIH-DT] [Mipshop] WG last call on MI… Noll, Kevin
- Re: [MIPSHOP-MIH-DT] [Mipshop] WG last call on MI… Gabor.Bajko