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

Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> Mon, 29 July 2013 07:44 UTC

Return-Path: <brian@innovationslab.net>
X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 696A221F999E for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 00:44:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mf3+aWogDdiv for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 00:43:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uillean.fuaim.com (uillean.fuaim.com [206.197.161.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB40421F9980 for <netext@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 00:43:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach-high.fuaim.com [206.197.161.158]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uillean.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83915880F0; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 00:43:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clemson.local (addr16212925014.ippl.jhmi.edu [162.129.250.14]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clairseach.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF9BF130003; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 00:43:48 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <51F61D33.6070408@innovationslab.net>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 03:43:47 -0400
From: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <sgundave@cisco.com>
References: <24C0F3E22276D9438D6F366EB89FAEA8103805C1@xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <24C0F3E22276D9438D6F366EB89FAEA8103805C1@xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "netext@ietf.org" <netext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [netext] Fwd: AD Evaluation : draft-ietf-netext-update-notifications
X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 07:44:00 -0000

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 the
> 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.

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 base
>> 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 and
> how to deal with that scenario.
> If the response to a UPN message is a Binding Error message, then the LMA
> 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 
function.

Regards,
Brian