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

Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> Mon, 16 June 2014 12:35 UTC

Return-Path: <brian@innovationslab.net>
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 B9FBB1A000F for <multimob@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 05:35:33 -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 Kdw3Ft43WCvN for <multimob@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 05:35:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uillean.fuaim.com (uillean.fuaim.com [206.197.161.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A059F1A0005 for <multimob@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 05:35:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach-high.fuaim.com [206.197.161.158]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uillean.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 853D7880E2 for <multimob@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 05:35:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clemson.local (addr16212925014.ippl.jhmi.edu [162.129.250.14]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clairseach.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BE3171C0002 for <multimob@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 05:35:31 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <539EE499.7010702@innovationslab.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 08:35:37 -0400
From: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: 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> <538662D3.6050708@venaas.com> <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A2E008D20CC@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> <539EC636.2060303@informatik.haw-hamburg.de>
In-Reply-To: <539EC636.2060303@informatik.haw-hamburg.de>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="A0sKNHXFRI7f9lnc85gJvPL3FAwMcMq8s"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multimob/lzHUyczqR42VaGROb1vN80Fwd0A
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: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 12:35:33 -0000

You could always borrow legacy text from RFC 791...

"Internet Header Length is the length of the internet header in 32 bit
words"

Regards,
Brian

On 6/16/14 6:25 AM, Thomas C. Schmidt wrote:
> Hi Dirk,
> 
> many thanks for you continued effort!
> 
> Making the bit counting more apparent, should not be a problem. I agree
> that this is a somewhat uncommon way of counting, but prevents us from
> changing the encoding structure of the mobility options, which I believe
> is the more relevant part.
> 
> What is your opinion, Stig?
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Thomas
> 
> On 16.06.2014 12:00, Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> I also had a look at the latest version -06 and it seems for me to be
>> ok now.
>> The only minor concern might be whether the expression "length in four
>> octets" is familiar enough (I didn't find this in any other draft) or
>> should be mentioned especially in terms of a warning "caution!" or
>> explicit (e.g. "i.e. 32 bit") or similar?
>> Otherwise I am fine with it ...
>> Thanks!
>> Best regards
>> Dirk
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Stig Venaas [mailto:stig@venaas.com]
>> Sent: Donnerstag, 29. Mai 2014 00:28
>> To: Thomas C. Schmidt; von Hugo, Dirk; multimob@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [multimob] Working group last call for
>> draft-ietf-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast-05
>>
>> 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-mu
>>>>>>>>> lticast-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 mailing list
>> multimob@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob
>>
>