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

Hesham Soliman <hesham@elevatemobile.com> Wed, 21 January 2009 07:08 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 0AA343A6A1A; Tue, 20 Jan 2009 23:08:16 -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 348C53A6A1A for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Jan 2009 23:08:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.539
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.539 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.060, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 RbRQfhLk84Zs for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Jan 2009 23:08:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-1.servers.netregistry.net (smtp.netregistry.net [202.124.241.204]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DC5E3A67CC for <mext@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Jan 2009 23:08:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [124.190.106.160] (helo=[192.168.0.187]) by smtp-1.servers.netregistry.net protocol: esmtpa (Exim 4.63 #1 (Debian)) id 1LPXBo-0000Uu-RN; Wed, 21 Jan 2009 18:07:53 +1100
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.15.0.081119
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 18:07:48 +1100
From: Hesham Soliman <hesham@elevatemobile.com>
To: Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <C59D14F4.B30D%hesham@elevatemobile.com>
Thread-Topic: [MEXT] GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review
Thread-Index: Acl7lvc8NBlF3S1gP0uYg4OO+2MeqA==
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.63.0901202245310.25562@irp-view13.cisco.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
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 >>> Leaving the TLV header alone in this draft will provide the

>>> necessary frame work.
>> 
>> => You're not answering the comment I mentioned above Sri.
>> 
> 
> First, I really feel the pain you had to deal with this draft,
> if that makes you feel any better. Its incredible, how many
> issues hit this draft at each level. Totally understand your
> efforts and that this needs to move.

=> Thanks. I just have to highlight two points:
- I'm expressing my opinion as a member of the WG. In this case I happened
to agree with the IESG review.
- It's not up to me to reconsider, you've seen the comments from Pasi in the
IESG review and you've seen other people's responses agreeing to remove
this. 

Again, I happen to agree with them, but it's not my decision to "reconsider"
even if I didn't agree. Also as you noted time is not on our side.

> I'm only afraid, we take this out from here, this will never see
> the day of the light. If there are some thoughts, on where it will
> go and that there will be no issues moving it to the other draft,
> that will help and will also not affect the long reached earlier
> consensus, phone calls ..etc.

=> I think it will be fine in NETLMM, you can add it to the IPv4 support
work if you like as an extension to DSMIPv6. I can't see why it will be
blocked in NETLMM, everyone there seems to be happy with it for PMIPv6.

Hesham


Again, please reconsider keeping
> the TLV, I dont see any reason how that will help moving it out,
> moving GRE, I can understand, but TLV, not sure. My 2c.
> 
> 
> Regards
> Sri
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>  Else, defining outside and mapping the
>>> pre-allocated v4/v6 types, will appear more like a hack. Since,
>>> Pasi's comment was more specific to GRE, not sure if it was
>>> about the TLV alone,
>> 
>> => Let's not talk about hacks....Pasi strongly suggested that we remove the
>> TLV completely and do it for PMIPv6. I think there is enough people who
>> already agree with that and I don't see a reason for us to debate this
>> endlessly. This draft is long overdue. So, it's best to include this in a
>> specific PMIP draft.
>> 
>> 
>> as there is much text required for TLV
>>> nego, or for describing the TLV format, thats already there in
>>> the draft.
>> 
>> => Right, you can easily copy and paste it.
>> 
>> Hesham
>> 
>>> 
>>> Sri
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 


_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
MEXT@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext