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

[Hesham Soliman <[e-mail]>]

Pasi mentioned in the first paragraph that he " would strongly suggest
moving the whole TLV header text to the separate GRE document."

This is different from keeping the TLV header and removing the assignment of
GRE values. Two very different approaches. It's not clear to me which one
you are asking for.

Hesham


On 16/01/09 1:02 AM, "George Tsirtsis" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> How are they different? Maybe I am missing something. The only type
> value defined currently on the TLV is for GRE. If you remove the GRE
> value, what is the TLV for?
> 
> George
> 
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Hesham Soliman
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> I think what Pasi suggests makes sense and will make things easier for
>>> whoever defines GRE support.
>> 
>> => So are you agreeing with removing the TLV completely or with simply
>> removing the assignment of the GRE? They're two different things.
>> 
>> Hesham
>> 
>>> 
>>> Not assigning a number for the TLV essentially means that the TLV
>>> header for GRE is undefined and thus nothing needs to be said about
>>> it. The whole thing can then be defined in a different spec as needed.
>>> 
>>> Regards
>>> George
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 1:24 PM, 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