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

[Sri Gundavelli <[e-mail]>]

Hi Pasi,

The specified GRE type value in the TLV header identifies the
payload that follows. Wondering, what more needs to be specified.
As the GRE format is specified in the respective specification,
here the purpose of TLV is only payload classification, with a
reference to that spec. Will a clarification help ?

The GRE key exchange draft in NETLMM is about defining an option
for GRE key exchange. It does not focus on the transport. Its only
deals with the key negotiation. The IPv4 support document in NETLMM
also does not focus on GRE transport, it falls back to the DSMIP spec
with normative reference.

So, if this is about a simple clarification, probably it can be fixed
here ? Also, there were long discussion threads on this topic a year
back.


Regards
Sri


On Thu, 15 Jan 2009, [e-mail] wrote:

> Hesham,
>
> I would strongly suggest moving the whole TLV header text to the
> separate GRE document.
>
> 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.
>
> 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