IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Mipshop] [Fwd: Re: Comments draft-ietf-mipshop-fh80216e-06]

Heejin Jang <heejin.jang@samsung.com> Mon, 03 March 2008 01:19 UTC

Return-Path: <mipshop-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-mipshop-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-mipshop-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADD1E3A6E21; Sun, 2 Mar 2008 17:19:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.433
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.433 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.004, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, 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 8LNBJ-hwEyLK; Sun, 2 Mar 2008 17:19:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BD3028C35F; Sun, 2 Mar 2008 17:19:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: mipshop@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mipshop@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48D793A6C82; Sun, 2 Mar 2008 17:19:00 -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 ONB-N1JItA0B; Sun, 2 Mar 2008 17:18:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout3.samsung.com (mailout3.samsung.com [203.254.224.33]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCA0528C392; Sun, 2 Mar 2008 17:18:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ep_ms5_bk (mailout3.samsung.com [203.254.224.33]) by mailout3.samsung.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 Patch 2 (built Jul 14 2004)) with ESMTP id <0JX400D9MRM5Z9@mailout3.samsung.com>; Mon, 03 Mar 2008 10:18:05 +0900 (KST)
Received: from ep_spt04 (ms5.samsung.com [203.254.225.113]) by ms5.samsung.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 Patch 2 (built Jul 14 2004)) with ESMTP id <0JX4003BERM4I3@ms5.samsung.com>; Mon, 03 Mar 2008 10:18:04 +0900 (KST)
Content-return: prohibited
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 01:18:04 +0000
From: Heejin Jang <heejin.jang@samsung.com>
To: Rajeev Koodli <rajeev.koodli@gmail.com>
Message-id: <15671405.255691204507084387.JavaMail.weblogic@epml03>
MIME-version: 1.0
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
Msgkey: 20080303011043218@heejin.jang
X-MTR: 20080303011043218@heejin.jang
X-EPLocale: ko_KR.windows-1252
X-EPWebmail-Msg-Type: personal
X-EPWebmail-Reply-Demand: 0
X-EPApproval-Locale:
X-EPHeader: ML
Cc: "mipshop@ietf.org" <mipshop@ietf.org>, "mipshop-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <mipshop-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "jari.arkko@piuha.net" <jari.arkko@piuha.net>, Vijay Devarapalli <vijay.devarapalli@azairenet.com>, "draft-ietf-mipshop-fh80216e@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mipshop-fh80216e@tools.ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Mipshop] [Fwd: Re: Comments draft-ietf-mipshop-fh80216e-06]
X-BeenThere: mipshop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: heejin.jang@samsung.com
List-Id: <mipshop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop>, <mailto:mipshop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:mipshop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mipshop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop>, <mailto:mipshop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: mipshop-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: mipshop-bounces@ietf.org

Rignt.
 
In the next version of the draft, we will define generic trigger messages not 
to rely on 802.21, and give a description about 802.21 primitives and their applicability in 
the appendix.  

Thanks for your concerns. :)
 
- Best regards, 
Heejin.

------- Original Message -------
Sender : Rajeev Koodli<rajeev.koodli@gmail.com>
Date   : 2008-03-01 12:53 (GMT+09:00)
Title  : Re: [Mipshop] [Fwd: Re: Comments draft-ietf-mipshop-fh80216e-06]



On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Vijay Devarapalli <vijay.devarapalli@azairenet.com> wrote:

>
> It seems a bit of a step backwards, away from the original conception of
> the work, to remove normative references to .21. Many of the
> presentations in MIPSHOP have illustrated use of MIP with .21. It was a
> major impetus of .21 to add features to the L2 to satisfy the needs of
> facilitating network layer mobility. Would it be possible to retain
> normative reference to .21, perhaps following some path used in previous
> successful joint projects that were documented in RFC 4441?

I wanted to comment on this particular topic.

The intention is to not require 802.21 to be implemented for
someone to be able to use FMIPv6 over 802.16e access networks.
So we are just modifying the text to reflect this.

The document will still describe how to use FMIPv6 over
802.16e using 802.21 primitives.
Right. It&#39;s been the thinking all along that FH-802.16e should be able to run without requiring 802.21, but be able to use it when available.         
-Rajeev        
        
        
 
Vijay
_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
Mipshop@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop

_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
Mipshop@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email