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

[<[e-mail]>]

Hesham,

I would strongly suggest moving the whole TLV header text to the
separate GRE document.

In particular, if you assign a number for GRE in this document,
you either need to describe how it works here, or have a normative
reference to the NETLMM spec.

Best regards,
Pasi

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Hesham Soliman [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: 14 January, 2009 14:23
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: Eronen Pasi (Nokia-NRC/Helsinki)
> Subject: GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review
> 
> Folks, 
> 
> Part of Pasi's review for DSMIPv6 was a comment on the lack of
> specification for GRE support in the spec. He said it was vastly
> under-specified, no details on the tunnelling, setting of different
> parts of the GRE header ...etc.
> 
> I suggested that we don't explicitly mention GRE in the spec but we
> keep the TLV tunnelling format and reserve the numbers for NETLMM to
> specify exactly how it will be used in a separate document. I think
> you would agree that this is largely driven by NETLMM needs and we
> shouldn't specify the details in MEXT. Pasi was ok with that.
> 
> Please express your opinion on this soon because Pasi's comments are
> the last comments for the draft and I want to handle them by Monday
> at the latest.
> 
> Please avoid discussing the merits of GRE....etc, the question is:
> 
> Are there any objections to removing explicit references to GRE
> while reserving the numbers in the TLV header for it to be specified
> clearly in NETLMM?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Hesham
_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext