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 >>> >> >
- [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