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

[Hesham Soliman <[e-mail]>]

> 
> 
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009, Hesham Soliman wrote:
> 
>>> 
>>> The issue would be that this spec needs to understand the payload
>>> qualifier, else we cant add themm later.
>> 
>> => It's not true though. You can add the exact same thing that we have in
>> the draft now but specify it in a more complete manner and it will be
>> backward compatible and interoperable. The negotiation bit in the BU would
>> have to be included in the new draft of course.
>> 
> 
> Leaving the TLV header alone in this draft will provide the
> necessary frame work.

=> You're not answering the comment I mentioned above Sri.

  Else, defining outside and mapping the
> pre-allocated v4/v6 types, will appear more like a hack. Since,
> Pasi's comment was more specific to GRE, not sure if it was
> about the TLV alone,

=> Let's not talk about hacks....Pasi strongly suggested that we remove the
TLV completely and do it for PMIPv6. I think there is enough people who
already agree with that and I don't see a reason for us to debate this
endlessly. This draft is long overdue. So, it's best to include this in a
specific PMIP draft.


as there is much text required for TLV
> nego, or for describing the TLV format, thats already there in
> the draft.

=> Right, you can easily copy and paste it.

Hesham

> 
> Sri
> 
> 


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