Re: [MEXT] GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review

[Basavaraj Patil <[e-mail]>]

I agree with the recommendation to moving the TLV header to a separate
document (if somene feels there is a need for it at all).

This spec is unneccesarily encumbered with the TLV header details and is
better off without it.

-Raj


On 1/15/09 7:24 AM, "ext Hesham Soliman" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 
> 
>> I would strongly suggest moving the whole TLV header text to the
>> separate GRE document.
> 
> => Personally, as everyone on the list knows, I was always against including
> this in the draft, I think it's a really bad idea, but obviously it's not my
> decision. So let's see what people say. I do agree with this suggestion.
> 
>> 
>> In particular, if you assign a number for GRE in this document,
>> you either need to describe how it works here, or have a normative
>> reference to the NETLMM spec.
> 
> => My suggestion below was not to assign any numbers in the draft. It was
> simply to have the TLV header unassigned and let someone else request the
> assignment and describe how it's used. My ideal preference is the one above
> (remove it completely) but the suggestion below was a compromise to speed
> things up. 
> 
> Hesham
> 
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> Pasi
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: ext Hesham Soliman [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>> Sent: 14 January, 2009 14:23
>>> To: [e-mail]
>>> Cc: Eronen Pasi (Nokia-NRC/Helsinki)
>>> Subject: GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review
>>> 
>>> Folks, 
>>> 
>>> Part of Pasi's review for DSMIPv6 was a comment on the lack of
>>> specification for GRE support in the spec. He said it was vastly
>>> under-specified, no details on the tunnelling, setting of different
>>> parts of the GRE header ...etc.
>>> 
>>> I suggested that we don't explicitly mention GRE in the spec but we
>>> keep the TLV tunnelling format and reserve the numbers for NETLMM to
>>> specify exactly how it will be used in a separate document. I think
>>> you would agree that this is largely driven by NETLMM needs and we
>>> shouldn't specify the details in MEXT. Pasi was ok with that.
>>> 
>>> Please express your opinion on this soon because Pasi's comments are
>>> the last comments for the draft and I want to handle them by Monday
>>> at the latest.
>>> 
>>> Please avoid discussing the merits of GRE....etc, the question is:
>>> 
>>> Are there any objections to removing explicit references to GRE
>>> while reserving the numbers in the TLV header for it to be specified
>>> clearly in NETLMM?
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> Hesham
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MEXT mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext

_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext