Re: [multimob] Working group last call for draft-ietf-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast-05

"Thomas C. Schmidt" <schmidt@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> Thu, 22 May 2014 11:29 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=2125dadc7=schmidt@informatik.haw-hamburg.de>
X-Original-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C5E21A0180 for <multimob@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 May 2014 04:29:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gb2dnvwvx9Cg for <multimob@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 May 2014 04:29:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx3.haw-public.haw-hamburg.de (mx3.haw-public.haw-hamburg.de [141.22.6.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 257791A017C for <multimob@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 May 2014 04:29:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgate.informatik.haw-hamburg.de ([141.22.30.74]) by mail3.is.haw-hamburg.de with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 22 May 2014 13:29:09 +0200
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailgate.informatik.haw-hamburg.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8932710679D7; Thu, 22 May 2014 13:29:09 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from mailgate.informatik.haw-hamburg.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mailgate.informatik.haw-hamburg.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 29502-07; Thu, 22 May 2014 13:29:08 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [193.1.167.106] (dhcp-c101a76a.ucd.ie [193.1.167.106]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailgate.informatik.haw-hamburg.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8AC0910679CF; Thu, 22 May 2014 13:29:06 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <537DDF80.7030804@informatik.haw-hamburg.de>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 12:29:04 +0100
From: "Thomas C. Schmidt" <schmidt@informatik.haw-hamburg.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>, Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de, multimob@ietf.org
References: <533095B8.8080207@venaas.com> <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A2DE422B244@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> <5339E4CC.9040809@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> <533DCF54.1080805@venaas.com> <5356A713.1030906@venaas.com> <5356B154.3030300@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> <537A7102.30501@venaas.com>
In-Reply-To: <537A7102.30501@venaas.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at informatik.haw-hamburg.de
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multimob/QQ0SrMybIEmUxv8JTKjt5Fu8ZtU
Subject: Re: [multimob] Working group last call for draft-ietf-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast-05
X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multicast Mobility <multimob.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/multimob>, <mailto:multimob-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/multimob/>
List-Post: <mailto:multimob@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:multimob-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob>, <mailto:multimob-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 11:29:16 -0000

Hi Stig, Dirk,

we just updated the document - sorry for me being slow.

We have fixed all nits that you pointed at.

In particular, the length counter issue should be resolved now: As this 
inherited 8 bit length counter is not long enough to count bytes of MLD 
state records, we propose to count four octets. This complies to the 
alignment and should not be a problem. However, it leads to a feasible 
number of MLD records in the payload which at least comes close to 
common packet lengths.

Best,

Thomas


On 19.05.2014 22:00, Stig Venaas wrote:
> Hi
>
> On 4/22/2014 11:13 AM, Thomas C. Schmidt wrote:
>> Hi Stig,
>>
>> sorry, we've been busy otherwise.
>>
>> We'll try to update asap.
>
> How is this going? Looks like we're still waiting.
>
> Stig
>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Thomas
>>
>> On 22.04.2014 19:29, Stig Venaas wrote:
>>> Thomas/authors, I think we're just waiting for 06 with these minor
>>> changes and we can request publication.
>>>
>>> Stig
>>>
>>> On 4/3/2014 2:15 PM, Stig Venaas wrote:
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> On 3/31/2014 2:57 PM, Thomas C. Schmidt wrote:
>>>>> Hi Dirk,
>>>>>
>>>>> many thanks for carefully looking through the draft. Please see
>>>>> comments
>>>>> inline.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 27.03.2014 16:30, Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry that I missed the preceding WGLC - I do think that this
>>>>>> document
>>>>>> is ready for publication. It has greatly improved since version 00
>>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Though some (minor) nits came to my mind after re-reading:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> p.1.
>>>>>> Updates: 5568 (if approved) => shouldn't be added 5949 since it does
>>>>>> also update PFMIPv6?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think so. The update of 5568 is with the PrRtAdv-Messages.
>>>>> 5949
>>>>> does not contain such things, as there is no explicit messaging
>>>>> between
>>>>> MAGs and the MN. Mobility Options are explicitly under the control of
>>>>> IANA.
>>>>>
>>>>>> As mentioned by others for prior versions there is still mixed usage
>>>>>> of FBack, Hack, ... and FBACK, HACK, ...
>>>>>> Same for PMAG/NMAG and pMAG/nMAG.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh yes, that was in the figures ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> p.10ff
>>>>>> "Section 3.3.  Protocol Operations Specific to PFMIPv6" and Figs. 4/5
>>>>>> do include "PMAG (PAR)" and "NMAG (NAR)" - isn't it all about PMIP -
>>>>>> so no relevance for AR? Otherwise I would expect a statement like
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> also a mixed scenario MIP/PMIP is in focus here ...
>>>>>> I tried to find out whether this was explained in prior posts but
>>>>>> didn't catch any ... sorry if I missed it!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually the terms PAR and NAR in parenthesis are used to indicate the
>>>>> correspondence with FMIP ... it does not consider mixed terms, but
>>>>> should help the reader to see that this is all about the same
>>>>> "abstract
>>>>> entities" here.
>>>>>
>>>>>> p.15
>>>>>> sect. 4.1.3 is on NAR, so I guess:
>>>>>> of the PAR => of the NAR
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>>> the NAR joins the groups subscribed
>>>>>>     for forwarding on the tunnel link. < sounds puzzling to me
>>>>>> => the NAR joins the groups the MN has subscribed
>>>>>>     for (which are then forwarded by PAR) via the tunnel link. <
>>>>>> is it
>>>>>> that what is meant?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, thanks. This is better.
>>>>>
>>>>>> p.21
>>>>>> number of muticast records => number of multicast records
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks, fixed.
>>>>>
>>>>>> or Section 4.2 of [RFC3376]) for the => or Section 4.2 of [RFC3376]
>>>>>> for the
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks, fixed.
>>>>>
>>>>>> p.23
>>>>>> 5.5.  Length Considerations: Number of Records and Addresses
>>>>>> I understand why the maximum number of multicast address records
>>>>>> is 72
>>>>>> or sources for MLDv2 is 89 (also given in
>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3810#section-5.1.10), but I miss a
>>>>>> consideration of specific limitation due to 8-bit Length format in
>>>>>> new
>>>>>> Mobility Header Multicast Option (Fig.7).
>>>>>> Have I misunderstood something or isn't there a much stricter limit
>>>>>> for multicast address records to (512-2-4)/(4+16) < 26 (w/o source
>>>>>> addresses) ??
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess you hit a point: By bringing back length formatting to
>>>>> standard
>>>>> mobility options recently, we missed that this will not fill an
>>>>> Ethernet
>>>>> packet. I don't think this matters much, but we definitely should
>>>>> adjust
>>>>> the section on length considerations.
>>>>>
>>>>>> for that multicast address to their MLDv2 (IGMPv2) equivalents
>>>>>> => for that multicast address to their MLDv2 (IGMPv3) equivalents
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks, fixed.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hope this helps
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, it definitely does.
>>>>>
>>>>> We will wait for the next days to pass the call deadline and resubmit
>>>>> then.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks. Looks like these are the only outstanding issues. Thanks for
>>>> having a careful look Dirk.
>>>>
>>>> Once you submit the new version I'll allow a couple of days for myself
>>>> and others to review changes. If they look good I'll request
>>>> publishing.
>>>>
>>>> If others have any issues, please let us know, even if passed the WGLC
>>>> deadline.
>>>>
>>>> Stig
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks again & best regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thomas
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>   -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: multimob [mailto:multimob-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stig
>>>>>> Venaas
>>>>>> Sent: Montag, 24. März 2014 21:30
>>>>>> To: multimob@ietf.org
>>>>>> Subject: [multimob] Working group last call for
>>>>>> draft-ietf-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast-05
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a working group last call for
>>>>>> draft-ietf-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast-05
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please state whether you think it is ready for publishing or if you
>>>>>> believe there are issues with the document or that it is not ready
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> other reasons.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The document has already been reviewed by several people, but it is
>>>>>> still good to hear from the working group what you think.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The last call ends one week from now on Monday March 31st.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The draft is available at
>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast-05
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stig
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> multimob mailing list
>>>>>> multimob@ietf.org
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> multimob mailing list
>>>>>> multimob@ietf.org
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

-- 

Prof. Dr. Thomas C. Schmidt
° Hamburg University of Applied Sciences                   Berliner Tor 7 °
° Dept. Informatik, Internet Technologies Group    20099 Hamburg, Germany °
° http://www.haw-hamburg.de/inet                   Fon: +49-40-42875-8452 °
° http://www.informatik.haw-hamburg.de/~schmidt    Fax: +49-40-42875-8409 °