Re: [netext] #12: missing considerations on how to maintain consistent forwarding policies

Hi Pierrick,

Please see inline below.

On Thu, 2013-02-14 at 10:49 +0000, pierrick.seite@orange.com wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Clearly, I'm not suggesting to describe mechanism for policy
> alignment, let alone specifying MN-MAG signaling.

OK, glad we are on the same page :D

> 
> Annex giving example on what can be done with L2 signaling may help.
> However, I think, the draft should state simple and clear assumptions
> on mobility control to avoid ambiguity on policy alignment. Basically,
> I suggest to add the following assumption (at least for prefix sharing
> scenario):
> 
> The MN makes the final IP flow mobility decision, then the LMA follows
> that decision and update its forwarding state accordingly. Note that,
> It does not prevent network initiated mobility, the network still
> could trigger mobility on the MN side via out-of-band mechanisms (e.g.
> 3GPP/ANDSF sends updated routing policies to the MN)... Actually, I'm
> suggesting the following statement "the MN always makes the final
> decision"

OK, let me add some text along those lines in the next version of the
draft.

Thanks!

> 
> Pierrick
> 
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : netext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:netext-bounces@ietf.org] De la
> > part de netext issue tracker
> > Envoyé : mercredi 13 février 2013 19:25
> > À : draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob@tools.ietf.org; cjbc@it.uc3m.es
> > Cc : netext@ietf.org
> > Objet : Re: [netext] #12: missing considerations on how to maintain
> > consistent forwarding policies
> > 
> > #12: missing considerations on how to maintain consistent forwarding
> > policies
> > 
> > 
> > Comment (by cjbc@it.uc3m.es):
> > 
> >  (apologies for not addressing this until now)
> > 
> >  I agree policy consistency is critical, and this is actually reflected
> > in  the draft. However, since the charter does not allows any type of
> > IP  signaling between the MAG and LMA, specifying any type of policy
> > alignment  signaling as part of the document seems to be clearly out of
> > the scope.
> >  The consensus I got from the WG (based on current charter boundaries)
> > was  to leave that unspecified, so it can be done using L2 signaling
> > for  example (and be specified by other SDOs).
> > 
> >  Do you have any suggestion on how to give clues without specifying a
> > solution in the document? Would it be enough to provide informative
> > examples (e.g., conveying that info as part of L2 signaling)?
> > 
> > --
> > -------------------------------------+---------------------------------
> > -
> > -------------------------------------+---
> >  Reporter:                           |       Owner:  draft-ietf-netext-
> >   pierrick.seite@orange.com          |  pmipv6-flowmob@tools.ietf.org
> >      Type:  defect                   |      Status:  new
> >  Priority:  major                    |   Milestone:
> > Component:  pmipv6-flowmob           |     Version:
> >  Severity:  Active WG Document       |  Resolution:
> >  Keywords:                           |
> > -------------------------------------+---------------------------------
> > -
> > -------------------------------------+---
> > 
> > Ticket URL:
> > <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/netext/trac/ticket/12#comment:1>
> > netext <http://tools.ietf.org/netext/>
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > netext mailing list
> > netext@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
> 
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> 
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
> 
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
> 