Re: [Mipshop] Section 4.3.1 of draft-ietf-mipshop-transient-bce-pmipv6

["Laganier, Julien" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Marco,

Marco Liebsch:
> 
>   Hi Julien,
> 
> Am 13.09.2010 18:46, schrieb Laganier, Julien:
> > Hi Marco,
> >
> > Marco Liebsch wrote:
> >> Hi Vijay,
> >>
> >> please find some text for a revived section 4.7 MN Operation below.
> >> Text in section 4.3.1 could then refer to this new section 4.7 to
> >> link context.
> >>
> >> 4.7.  MN operation
> >>
> >>    For single-radio handover, this specification does not require
> any
> >>    extended mode of operation on the MN when compared to [RFC5213].
> >>
> >>    During dual-radio handover, the MN benefits most from the
> transient
> >>    BCE extension to PMIPv6 when it is able to keep communication on
> the
> >>    previous interface while it is setting up its handover target
> >>    interface with the configuration context which has been received
> as a
> >>    result of the new interface's attachment to the nMAG.  Various
> >>    techniques enable support for such operation, e.g. the use of a
> >>    virtual interface on top of physical radio interfaces or
> > I suggest:
> >
> > "logical interface on top of physical radio interfaces [I-D. ietf-
> netext-logical-interface-support] or"
>
> I am not sure why we should have a reference to NetExt, as the approach
> how to realize this is not NetExt specific. Examples are given in the text.

I do not propose a reference to netext, I propose a reference to a document that describes exactly what you need, i.e., a logical interface that hides multiple physical interfaces. The examples you have are vague and having an _informational_ reference to a document that describes what is need is, well, informative.
 
> And: If a reference is needed, why NetExt and not MIF?

Because AFAIK MIF has no document describing a logical interface hiding multiple physical interfaces. And the reference is to a document, not a WG.

--julien