Re: [multimob] RV: I-D Action: draft-ietf-multimob-fast-handover-03.txt

[Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[e-mail]>]

Hi Thomas,

On Mon, 2012-11-05 at 17:28 -0500, Thomas C. Schmidt wrote:
> Hi Luis,
> 
> I was just flying over the rams/sial draft and saw my previous comments 
> untreated.
> 
> This was the transient binding below ... and IPv4 treatment ... and some 
> more details I had commented about 10 - 15 months ago, but cannot 
> quickly find my mail. Please have a look.

Regarding the transient binding, I thought Marco already commented on
that. I'm just pasting below what he said:

"Just a side note: As there was already some confusion during Vancouver
meeting and the reference to the transient binding extensions (RFC6058)
still shows up repeatedly, let me clarify one thing:

PFMIP6 and Transient Binding address different use cases, they
have been specified to address different problem spaces. It's 
not appropriate to refer to these two unicast protocol extensions
in the multicast space [...]"

Probably Luis can add on top of that.

> 
> So I guess you wanted to say "*partially* addressing received comments"

Regarding the other comments you mentioned, please tell us which
specific issues you have on current version. When we said that current
version addresses all received comments, we truly believed that, though
it is possible we missed some by mistake (not intentionally). We are
actually looking forward for your review.

Thanks,

Carlos

> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Thomas
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [multimob] draft-ietf-multimob-fast-handover + transient binding
> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 14:36:25 -0700
> From: Thomas C. Schmidt <[e-mail]>
> To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> 
> Hi,
> 
> as discussed today in the meeting, the following question was raised:
> 
> draft-ietf-multimob-fast-handover transfers context from pMAG via LMA to
> nMAG - which in concept corresponds to the *Transient*Binding* in
> unicast RFC 6058 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6058.
> 
> draft-ietf-multimob-fast-handover does not even reference RFC 6058 ...
> but probably should closely stick to the unicast solution.
> 
> So the question is about protocol systematics: Do we want unicast and
> multicast protocol operations remain incompatible?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Thomas
> 
> On 23.10.2012 15:09, LUIS MIGUEL CONTRERAS MURILLO wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Yesterday we submitted a new version of the WG document "draft-ietf-multimob-fast-handover", addressing received comments and pending sections.
> >
> > Additional comments are welcome.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Luis
> >
> > -----Mensaje original-----
> > De: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] En nombre de [e-mail]
> > Enviado el: lunes, 22 de octubre de 2012 20:07
> > Para: [e-mail]
> > CC: [e-mail]
> > Asunto: [multimob] I-D Action: draft-ietf-multimob-fast-handover-03.txt
> >
> >
> > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
> >   This draft is a work item of the Multicast Mobility Working Group of the IETF.
> >
> >          Title           : PMIPv6 multicast handover optimization by the Subscription Information Acquisition through the LMA (SIAL)
> >          Author(s)       : Luis M. Contreras
> >                            Carlos J. Bernardos
> >                            Ignacio Soto
> >          Filename        : draft-ietf-multimob-fast-handover-03.txt
> >          Pages           : 42
> >          Date            : 2012-10-22
> >
> > Abstract:
> >     This document specifies a multicast handover optimization mechanism
> >     for Proxy Mobile IPv6 to accelerate the delivery of multicast traffic
> >     to mobile nodes after handovers.  The mechanism is based on speeding
> >     up the acquisition of mobile nodes' multicast context by the mobile
> >     access gateways.  To do that, extensions to the current Proxy Mobile
> >     IPv6 protocol are proposed.  These extensions are not only applicable
> >     to the base solution for multicast support in Proxy Mobile IPv6, but
> >     they can also be applied to other solutions being developed to avoid
> >     the tunnel convergence problem.  Furthermore, they are also
> >     independent of the role played by the mobile access gateway within
> >     the multicast network (either acting as multicast listener discovery
> >     proxy or multicast router).
> >
> >
> > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-multimob-fast-handover
> >
> > There's also a htmlized version available at:
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-multimob-fast-handover-03
> >
> > A diff from the previous version is available at:
> > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-multimob-fast-handover-03
> >
> >
> > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > multimob mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace situado más abajo.
> > This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at:
> > http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx
> > _______________________________________________
> > multimob mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob
> >
> 

-- 
Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano  http://www.netcom.it.uc3m.es/
GPG FP: D29B 0A6A 639A A561 93CA  4D55 35DC BA4D D170 4F67