Re: [multimob] Working group last call for draft-ietf-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast-05
Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com> Wed, 28 May 2014 22:27 UTC
Return-Path: <stig@venaas.com>
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 769481A06FA for <multimob@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 May 2014 15:27:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 dEAlzgasGzMI for <multimob@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 May 2014 15:27:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ufisa.uninett.no (ufisa.uninett.no [IPv6:2001:700:1:2:158:38:152:126]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A23E21A06F4 for <multimob@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 May 2014 15:27:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.154.208.178] (128-107-239-236.cisco.com [128.107.239.236]) by ufisa.uninett.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0E58F8025; Thu, 29 May 2014 00:27:33 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <538662D3.6050708@venaas.com>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 15:27:31 -0700
From: Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Thomas C. Schmidt" <schmidt@informatik.haw-hamburg.de>, 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> <537DDF80.7030804@informatik.haw-hamburg.de>
In-Reply-To: <537DDF80.7030804@informatik.haw-hamburg.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multimob/ZqYbBycfI_THpxxbbQOp5SrBZrg
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: Wed, 28 May 2014 22:27:42 -0000
Hi On 5/22/2014 4:29 AM, Thomas C. Schmidt wrote: > 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. Thanks. I'll have a look at this shortly. Great if others can help verify that this change is OK as well. Stig > 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
- [multimob] Working group last call for draft-ietf… Stig Venaas
- Re: [multimob] Working group last call for draft-… Dirk.von-Hugo
- Re: [multimob] Working group last call for draft-… Thomas C. Schmidt
- Re: [multimob] Working group last call for draft-… Stig Venaas
- Re: [multimob] Working group last call for draft-… Stig Venaas
- Re: [multimob] Working group last call for draft-… Thomas C. Schmidt
- Re: [multimob] Working group last call for draft-… Stig Venaas
- Re: [multimob] Working group last call for draft-… Thomas C. Schmidt
- Re: [multimob] Working group last call for draft-… Stig Venaas
- Re: [multimob] Working group last call for draft-… Dirk.von-Hugo
- Re: [multimob] Working group last call for draft-… Thomas C. Schmidt
- Re: [multimob] Working group last call for draft-… Brian Haberman
- Re: [multimob] Working group last call for draft-… Stig Venaas
- Re: [multimob] Working group last call for draft-… Thomas C. Schmidt
- Re: [multimob] Working group last call for draft-… Stig Venaas
- Re: [multimob] Working group last call for draft-… Stig Venaas