Re: [netext] AD review of draft-ietf-netext-bulk-re-registration

Thanks for your detailed review.

Jari

On 06.01.2012 10:51, Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Referring to the suggested additional WG reviews of the updated draft I want to share with you the minor nits I found ;-)
>
> 1. Intro
>
> provides a more optimal mechanism =>  provides a considerably improved mechanism
> (afaik 'optimal' already denotes the best)
>
> 3.1. Motivation
>
> revocation operations on a group on mobility sessions =>  revocation operations on a group of mobility sessions
>
> 3.2. General Operation
>
> P.7
> respectively, while the LMA assigns them both to the same to the
> bulk
> =>  respectively, while the LMA assigns them both to the same bulk
>
> part of bulk binding update group, L1.  =>   part of bulk binding update group, (L1).
>
> 4.1 Extensions to Proxy Binding Update Message
>
> Figure 2 =>  Figure 2: Proxy Binding Update Message
> (to have consistency to 4.2.)
>
> 'bulk binding operation group' (occurs 3 times in the draft, see p.12) is not defined?! Shouldn't it read =>  'bulk binding update group' ?
>
> group and thus any any binding update =>  group and thus any binding update
>
> 5.1 MAG Considerations
>
> identifies the list of bulk binding update group specific to each
> =>  identifies the list of bulk binding update groups specific to each
>
> 5.1.1
>
> Proxy Binding Update message.  If there is no such grouping is
> =>  Proxy Binding Update message.  If there is no such grouping
>
> 5.2.1.
>
> given mobility session to a specific bulk binding update group is
> =>  given mobility session to a specific bulk binding update group are
>
>
> P.16
> if the if the received Proxy Binding Update from the new mobile
> =>  if the received Proxy Binding Update from the new mobile
>
> 5.2.2
>
> Currently, this specification only support sub-type value of (1)
> =>  Currently, this specification only supports sub-type value of (1)
>
> 0 (Proxy Binding Update accepted).  =>  (0) (Proxy Binding Update accepted).
>
> 6.2. Mobile Access Gateway - Configuration Variables
>
> this flag is set to (1), indicating that the the mobile access
> =>  this flag is set to (1), indicating that the mobile access
>
> 9. Acknowledgements
>
> Patil Carlos Jesus Bernardos Cano and Jari Arkko for their reviews
> =>  Patil, Carlos Jesus Bernardos Cano, and Jari Arkko for their reviews
>
> Thanks and best regards
> Dirk
>
> Von: netext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:netext-bounces@ietf.org] Im Auftrag von Jari Arkko
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 3. Januar 2012 09:33
> An: Sri Gundavelli
> Cc: netext@ietf.org; draft-ietf-netext-bulk-re-registration@tools.ietf.org
> Betreff: Re: [netext] AD review of draft-ietf-netext-bulk-re-registration
>
> Sri:
>
> Thanks for the update! I have reviewed the changes and they look good to me with one exception (below). I have in any case requested an IETF Last Call to be initiated and expect that you fix the remaining issues by issuing yet another draft quickly.
>
> But the changes are pretty big -- it would also be useful if members of the WG reviewed the document while it is in the Last Call.
>
>> o  When sending the Mobile Node Group Identifier option in the
>>    binding update messages related to the individual session
>>    establishment, the Bulk-Binding-Update (B) flag in the request
>>    MUST be set to a value of (1).  However, when initiating any
>>    binding update operations with group specific scope, the Bulk-
>>    Binding-Update (B) flag in the request MUST always be set to a
>>    value of (0), with the Mobile Node Group Identifier option present
>>    in the request.
> There is something wrong with the above text. B must be set in the session establishment, but not with "binding update operations with group specific scope"? (And what are those?)
>
> Jari
>
> _______________________________________________
> netext mailing list
> netext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
>