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

Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com> Tue, 22 April 2014 17:30 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 B50741A0684 for <multimob@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 10:30:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001] 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 0CGF3YgPwo8g for <multimob@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 10:30:09 -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 02B161A0215 for <multimob@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 10:30:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:420:301:1004:8450:2cd0:75e1:9c3d] (unknown [IPv6:2001:420:301:1004:8450:2cd0:75e1:9c3d]) by ufisa.uninett.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8DA017FF8; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 19:30:01 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <5356A713.1030906@venaas.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 10:29:55 -0700
From: Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
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>
In-Reply-To: <533DCF54.1080805@venaas.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multimob/nalSaJpnt-1T72u9MNf3I52X2Tw
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: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 17:30:16 -0000

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
>>>
>>
>