Re: [netext] Fwd: AD Evaluation : draft-ietf-netext-update-notifications

"Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <> Mon, 29 July 2013 08:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF7C721F9D71 for <>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 01:19:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ot2voUspG8XL for <>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 01:19:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF2A321F9B0E for <>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 01:19:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=3155; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1375085959; x=1376295559; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=ZzCniG3+iHGDlc8nF++aCxEd3hj2kt6DBoHy4kT4QY4=; b=C4xDkYMcERfu4vO+gTJvFTngYEZdJQcKudgrPmio48xOXpOjfHjZazZV iFexd+GZc9Db3D6qNMRuH+2gCgpY99RVT59RvEqgXowRu2lZRuHr4vXF2 ktVV4APP+4a5EpOP0OqkVYDqo8B6BaYEWesIROrxzXnvYbvah06QGZonT 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AggFAFck9lGtJV2b/2dsb2JhbABbgwaBBb1WgRUWdIIkAQEBBDo9AhIBCBgKFEIlAgQOBQiICLdmj0oCMQeDGG8DqSuDFIFoBzs
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,767,1367971200"; d="scan'208";a="240692973"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 29 Jul 2013 08:19:19 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r6T8JJDv006581 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 29 Jul 2013 08:19:19 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 03:19:18 -0500
From: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <>
To: Brian Haberman <>
Thread-Topic: [netext] Fwd: AD Evaluation : draft-ietf-netext-update-notifications
Thread-Index: AQHOjDRRhfj+0q/aOUiCbfBJuqY4KQ==
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 08:19:17 +0000
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [netext] Fwd: AD Evaluation : draft-ietf-netext-update-notifications
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 08:19:38 -0000

Hi Brian,

Please see inline.

On 7/29/13 12:43 AM, "Brian Haberman" <> wrote:

>Hi Sri,
>      I have deleted those points where there is no additional
>discussion needed...
>On 7/27/13 7:09 PM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote:
>>> * Section 4
>>> - Is there any guidance needed on managing the wrapping of the Sequence
>>> #'s?
>> We just require some random number, without collusions. We can add some
>> text to say how to manage that field.
>Ok.  Just ensure that the descriptive text does not impact the Sequence
># usage defined in the base PMIPv6 spec.


>>> - Are there informative references that could be added for mobility
>>> options other than the vendor-specific ones?
>> Potentially some some new work items that we can point to. If there are
>> Active I-D's will add a reference.
>That would be useful.  Just make sure they are informative references so
>that this spec does not get held up on a reference to an I-D.


>>> - Can you provide an example of where an LMA would not request an ACK
>>> for a UPN?
>> Message String extension. LMA sending some status messages related to
>> service its offering. These service message may not need Ack's.
>> Also, a UPN message with NR=RE-register may not need a Ack messages. The
>> LMA after sending the UPN message with that NR code can wait the PBU
>> message.
>So, is it worth mentioning these in the draft?  It seems that the LMA is
>in full control of whether an ACK is needed, but it *could* be useful to
>describe the *types* of options that do not need an ACK.

IMO, this may not be needed, unless the protocol definition is incorrect.
But, we can add a statement or two explaining as when the LMA may choose
not to set the general terms.

>I am not insisting on this.  Just trying to see if such an addition
>would make the spec easier to understand/implement.
>>> * Section 5.2
>>> - I am surprised by the use of SHOULD (SHOULD NOT) for re-transmission
>>> rules.  When would you expect these rules to be ignored?
>> Ok. Will review this again.
>If the SHOULDs are appropriate, it would be good to describe a scenario
>(or type of scenaro) where the SHOULD would be ignored.


>>> * Section 6.1
>>> - The 2nd bullet is useless.  If an implementation does not support
>>> these messages, they wouldn't know to look here for responses.  The
>>> PMIPv6 spec covers the response message for unknown message types.
>> This is about LMA sending a UPN message to a MAG that does not support
>> how to deal with that scenario.
>> If the response to a UPN message is a Binding Error message, then the
>> can be forced not to send any more UPN messages.
>Given that section 6.1 talks about MAG considerations, it seemed odd to
>describe how the MAG is supposed to respond if it doesn't support this

Let me check on this. Will fix it.

Will post the updated document this week.