Re: [netext] Pete Resnick's No Objection on draft-ietf-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation-05: (with COMMENT)
"Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <sgundave@cisco.com> Tue, 12 August 2014 23:09 UTC
Return-Path: <sgundave@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5D501A0478; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 16:09:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.169
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.169 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 hVxRdKHV5B7B; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 16:09:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F62F1A036D; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 16:09:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5049; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1407884944; x=1409094544; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=lgtZKZR8tiS2FIeElu2hByMcRiEoOe7RhgIMAY8F0gI=; b=SWHzw0G4OIZA/9g8yb+LKHMaiAyIRVMx3uqXCNJ/JN97J6WsEWAH7sag 9zm2Z5ye0fQd6p07ci+AFnixyfdbsTUzFBe9X+0rQXUnBrotC8SsWJgih asWmNwyC4LKtKUd5IPOS85hoNcGEHYDNce3H5RJ4rxVdBet+1l4phkyqB Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhkFAG2d6lOtJV2a/2dsb2JhbABXAxaCd1JXBM0yh0YBgRIWd4QEAQEEOj8SAQgOCh4FPSUCBA4FCYg5DcUZF4wdgk0RAUAQAgURhDsFhhCLDYQmhnaBV4oqiH2CFoFGbAGBDjk
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,852,1400025600"; d="scan'208";a="347018221"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Aug 2014 23:09:03 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com [173.37.183.83]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s7CN93xA020210 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 12 Aug 2014 23:09:03 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com ([169.254.6.223]) by xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([173.37.183.83]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 18:09:03 -0500
From: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <sgundave@cisco.com>
To: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
Thread-Topic: [netext] Pete Resnick's No Objection on draft-ietf-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation-05: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHPtoJoRXmqoJQltkmx34u+0H5IQw==
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 23:09:02 +0000
Message-ID: <D00FEC8E.1585A5%sgundave@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <53EA9DC1.3080901@qti.qualcomm.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.3.120616
x-originating-ip: [10.32.246.222]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <478DDCFA7916F14F8093FA698E327914@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netext/1QA7NXPVywefQoI-5BynmyVFxTU
Cc: "netext@ietf.org" <netext@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "netext-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <netext-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [netext] Pete Resnick's No Objection on draft-ietf-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation-05: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " <netext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netext>, <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netext/>
List-Post: <mailto:netext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext>, <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 23:09:07 -0000
Ok. Thanks Pete. Regards Sri On 8/12/14 4:05 PM, "Pete Resnick" <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com> wrote: >The changes look fine. Thanks. > >pr > >On 8/9/14 11:54 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote: >> Hi Pete, >> >> Thanks for the review. Please see inline. >> >> >> >> On 8/6/14 8:59 PM, "Pete Resnick"<presnick@qti.qualcomm.com> wrote: >> >> >>> Pete Resnick has entered the following ballot position for >>> draft-ietf-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation-05: No Objection >>> >>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >>> introductory paragraph, however.) >>> >>> >>> Please refer to >>>http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html >>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >>> >>> >>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >>> >>>http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation/ >>> >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> COMMENT: >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> A few weirdnesses in section 4: >>> >>> There can be multiple >>> instances of the LMA User Plane Address mobility option present in >>> the message, one for IPv4 and the other for IPv6 transport. >>> >>> Do you really mean "there can be multiple instances", or do you rather >>> mean "there can be either one or two instances: One for IPv4, one for >>> IPv6, or one for each of them"? >>> >> >> We tried to say there can be one or two instance of the option (option >> format in Section 4), one for each IP version. >> >> OLD: >> >> The LMA User Plane Address mobility option is a new mobility header >> option defined for use with PBU and PBA messages exchanged between >> the LMA and the MAG. This option is used for notifying the MAG >>about >> the LMA's user plane IPv6 or IPv4 address. There can be multiple >> instances of the LMA User Plane Address mobility option present in >> the message, one for IPv4 and the other for IPv6 transport. >> >> NEW: >> >> The LMA User Plane Address mobility option is a new mobility header >> option defined for use with PBU and PBA messages exchanged between >> the LMA and the MAG. This option is used for notifying the MAG >>about >> the LMA's user plane IPv6 or IPv4 address. There can be zero, one or >> two instances of the LMA User Plane Address mobility option present in >> the message. When two instances of the option are present, one instance >> of the option must be for IPv4 transport and the other instance must be >> for IPv6 transport. >> >> >> (Or, please suggest text) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> ...the IP address field >>> in the option can be either a zero-length field, or... >>> >>> Two instances of the above. Should that "can" be a MUST? >>> ' >>> >> >> Yes. Thanks. >> >> >> OLD: >> >> o When using IPv4 transport for the user-plane, the IP address field >> in the option can be either a zero-length field, or a 4-octet >> field with ALL_ZERO value. >> >> o When using IPv6 transport for the user-plane, the IP address >>field >> in the option can be either a zero-length field, or a 16-octet >> field with ALL_ZERO value. >> >> >> >> NEW: >> >> o When using IPv4 transport for the user-plane, the IP address field >> in the option MUST be either a zero-length field, or a 4-octet >> field with ALL_ZERO value. >> >> o When using IPv6 transport for the user-plane, the IP address field >> in the option MUST be either a zero-length field, or a 16-octet >> field with ALL_ZERO value. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> ...the IP address field in the option MUST be set... >>> >>> In the above and the two bullet items below it: Shouldn't the "MUST be" >>> in each one instead be "is"? There's no protocol requirement there. >>>What >>> else *could* an implementation do? >>> >>> >> Ok. >> >> OLD: >> >> o When using IPv4 transport for the user-plane, the IP address field >> in the option MUST be the IPv4 address carrying user-plane >> traffic. >> >> o When using IPv6 transport for the user-plane, the IP address >>field >> in the option MUST be the IPv6 address carrying user-plane >> traffic. >> >> >> NEW: >> >> o When using IPv4 transport for the user-plane, the IP address field >> in the option is the IPv4 address carrying user-plane >> traffic. >> >> o When using IPv6 transport for the user-plane, the IP address >>field >> in the option is the IPv6 address carrying user-plane >> traffic. >> >> >> >> >> >> Regards >> Sri >> > >-- >Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/> >Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478 >
- [netext] Pete Resnick's No Objection on draft-iet… Pete Resnick
- Re: [netext] Pete Resnick's No Objection on draft… Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [netext] Pete Resnick's No Objection on draft… Pete Resnick
- Re: [netext] Pete Resnick's No Objection on draft… Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)