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

[George Tsirtsis <[e-mail]>]

I would remove the TLV completely.
George

On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Hesham Soliman
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 16/01/09 1:13 AM, "George Tsirtsis" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Hesham Soliman
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> Pasi mentioned in the first paragraph that he " would strongly suggest
>>> moving the whole TLV header text to the separate GRE document."
>>>
>>
>> GT> This makes sense to me.
>>
>>> This is different from keeping the TLV header and removing the assignment of
>>> GRE values.
>>
>> GT> I am still trying to understand what this means in practice. If
>> you keep the TLV header and remove the GRE assigned value then the
>> draft will NOT have any valid Type values for the TLV header. What is
>> an implementation supposed to do with that?
>
> => Absolutely nothing until a number is assigned in another spec.
>
>>
>>> Two very different approaches. It's not clear to me which one
>>> you are asking for.
>>>
>>
>> GT> If you can clarify the above I will tell you :-)
>
> => Hope this helps :)
>
> Hesham
>
>>
>>> 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