IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [MEXT] GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review

<Pasi.Eronen@nokia.com> Tue, 27 January 2009 16:26 UTC

Return-Path: <mext-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: nemo-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-nemo-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D75413A6986; Tue, 27 Jan 2009 08:26:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2ACB3A68D2 for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Jan 2009 08:26:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.667
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.667 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.068, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yDqjvj+0v1SQ for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Jan 2009 08:26:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mgw-mx03.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [192.100.122.230]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0CB83A6A6F for <mext@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Jan 2009 08:25:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vaebh106.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh106.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.32]) by mgw-mx03.nokia.com (Switch-3.2.6/Switch-3.2.6) with ESMTP id n0RGP7cN004669; Tue, 27 Jan 2009 18:25:30 +0200
Received: from esebh102.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.183]) by vaebh106.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 27 Jan 2009 18:25:25 +0200
Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.8]) by esebh102.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 27 Jan 2009 18:25:25 +0200
Received: from NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.106]) by nok-am1mhub-04.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.8]) with mapi; Tue, 27 Jan 2009 17:25:24 +0100
From: Pasi.Eronen@nokia.com
To: sgundave@cisco.com, hesham@elevatemobile.com
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 17:25:20 +0100
Thread-Topic: [MEXT] GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review
Thread-Index: Acl7mE19JXO/cThEQ4aahXGrrIMCUgFAmgwg
Message-ID: <808FD6E27AD4884E94820BC333B2DB7727E77FFF67@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com>
References: <C59D14F4.B30D%hesham@elevatemobile.com> <Pine.GSO.4.63.0901202310180.1283@irp-view13.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.63.0901202310180.1283@irp-view13.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Jan 2009 16:25:25.0020 (UTC) FILETIME=[DBA6D5C0:01C9809B]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
Cc: mext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [MEXT] GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: mext-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org

Sri Gundavelli wrote:

> May be Pasi/IESG can clarify on this. As I understood, he was more
> concerned on the lack of specification on the GRE tunneling
> mechanism and not specific to TLV related header, there is not much
> to specify there.

I believe moving all TLV header text to some other document would get
draft-ietf-mext-nemo-v4traversal published much faster.

This discussion thread has already revealed that the TLV format
probably isn't quite right. (For example, according to the current
text, the "Type" field has only two possible values (0 and 1 -- not
much room for future extensibility!), and the length field isn't
actually used for anything.) Also, the 'T' bit in BU seems redundant,
since neither MN nor HA actually uses the value for anything in
this specification.

I'm not objecting to keeping the TLV format in this document if the
issues are fixed, but would recommend taking small steps: get
nemo-v4traversal spec published first, and figure out TLV format
details when they're actually needed (in current nemo-v4traversal
spec, neither MN nor HA actually ever sends any TLV format packets).

Best regards,
Pasi
_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
MEXT@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email