Re: [netext] [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-09.txt]

Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <cjbc@it.uc3m.es> Wed, 25 June 2014 22:05 UTC

Return-Path: <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
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 F07A51B27D7 for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Jun 2014 15:05:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.552
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.552 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 WWdetcgqmM8N for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Jun 2014 15:05:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp03.uc3m.es (smtp03.uc3m.es [163.117.176.133]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB8551B27C3 for <netext@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Jun 2014 15:05:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp03.uc3m.es (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DA1E15166B9; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 00:05:23 +0200 (CEST)
X-uc3m-safe: yes
X-uc3m-safe: yes
Received: from [192.168.49.75] (93-57-93-58.ip163.fastwebnet.it [93.57.93.58]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: cjbc@smtp03.uc3m.es) by smtp03.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 22DD29D3393; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 00:05:23 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <1403733921.11909.19.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es>
From: Carlos =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jes=FAs?= Bernardos Cano <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
To: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <sgundave@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 00:05:21 +0200
In-Reply-To: <CFC87176.13FB6C%sgundave@cisco.com>
References: <CFC87176.13FB6C%sgundave@cisco.com>
Organization: Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.8.5-2+b3
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1224-7.5.0.1017-20780.002
X-TM-AS-Result: No--33.211-7.0-31-1
X-imss-scan-details: No--33.211-7.0-31-1
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netext/DkfY4rk4-qF8ll3f2zel0WxcdA4
Cc: "netext@ietf.org" <netext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [netext] [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-09.txt]
X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: cjbc@it.uc3m.es
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: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 22:05:30 -0000

Hi,

I've just posted -10, now including only one single signaling
mechanisms, as discussed on the ML.

I think this version is ready for WGLC.

Carlos

On Thu, 2014-06-19 at 18:09 +0000, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote:
> Hi Carlos/All,
> 
> 
> Can we plan to close this work in the next few days. AFAIK, this
> FMI/FMA issue is now resolved. If you still doubt the consensus on
> this issue, we can wait for 2 days for any comments and post the next
> rev.
> 
> 
> I'm hoping we will close this work this week and go LC on Monday (if
> chairs agree). Waiting for Toronto meeting can delay the work by
> another few months.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regards
> Sri
> 
> 
> From: Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@cisco.com>
> Date: Thursday, June 19, 2014 6:46 AM
> To: "pierrick.seite@orange.com" <pierrick.seite@orange.com>om>, Hidetoshi
> Yokota <yokota@kddilabs.jp>jp>, "netext@ietf.org" <netext@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [netext] [Fwd: I-D Action:
> draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-09.txt]
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Pierrick,
> 
> 
> After the NETEXT meeting in London, we had some offline discussions
> with Rajiv and folks. There is agreement to use the RFC-7077 (UPN)
> messaging format for FMI/FMA. So, the Flow Mobility spec may refer to
> this message as FMI/FMA, but the underneath messaging format will
> confirm to RFC-7077 format and will have references to RFC-7077. We
> are not going to define a new MH message. This closes the key issue of
> using two notification approaches in the same spec. AFAIK, no one has
> any objection to this. If any does, its now time to speak up :)
> 
> 
> Regards
> Sri
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: "pierrick.seite@orange.com" <pierrick.seite@orange.com>
> Date: Thursday, June 19, 2014 1:32 AM
> To: Hidetoshi Yokota <yokota@kddilabs.jp>jp>, "netext@ietf.org"
> <netext@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [netext] [Fwd: I-D Action:
> draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-09.txt]
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Hidetoshi/all,
> 
>  
> 
> Release -08 mandates RFC7077 and the doc was good, IMHO. But, in
> London, we have decided (group consensus) to reintroduce FMI/FMA to
> avoid dependency between RFC. Now, it’s true that introducing 2
> options for message format makes the solution more complex for little
> added-value (no major differences between messages)… So, maybe the
> question is “is it good or bad to have RFC dependency?” then update
> the draft according the answer...
> 
>  
> 
> Pierrick
> 
>  
> 
> De : netext [mailto:netext-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Hidetoshi
> Yokota
> Envoyé : jeudi 19 juin 2014 06:41
> À : netext@ietf.org
> Objet : Re: [netext] [Fwd: I-D Action:
> draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-09.txt]
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Hello Carlos,
> 
> Thanks for updating the draft. 
> I have a couple of questions and comments:
> 
> o In Section 3.2.1, which is the shared prefix case, there is no
> message exchange between the LMA and MAG, so there is no flow
> information on the MAG side. It should work in the sense of routing,
> but if, for example, each flow has a specific QoS, the MAG should also
> need to know which flow should go on which QoS path especially for
> upstream traffic towards the LMA. Or, the MAG may want to send a
> trigger for flow mobility to the MN (the exact mechanism is out of
> scope).  Some mobility signaling should be there, too.
> 
> o In Section 3.3, FMI/FMA are revived considering the case where UPN
> is not supported, but they convey very little information. There is no
> special information that cannot be conveyed by the existing messages.
> Since RFC7077 is now a proposed standard, I cannot think of a
> situation where the UPN/UPA are not supported, nevertheless FMI/FMA
> are supported. It rather seems more natural to mandate the support of
> RFC7077 or to mandate FMI/FMA for all flow mobility operations.
> Also, when compared with UPN/UPA case in Figure 4, FMI/FMA seem to
> convey different set of parameters in Figure 7. Could you clarify it a
> little bit more please?
> 
> o In Section 3.3, just above Figure 7, there is a description: "...,
> and the type of flow mobility operation (add flow)", but does RFC6089
> define such an operation code? This kind of operation should also be
> defined in the draft.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Hidetoshi Yokota
>  
> KDDI R&D Laboratories, Inc.
> e-mail:yokota@kddilabs.jp
> 
>  
> 
> (2014/06/14 2:16), Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano wrote:
> 
> 
>         Hi,
>          
>         As agreed in London, I've updated the flow mobility draft to include
>         also the FMI/FMA signaling option (in addition to the use of Update
>         Notifications). The draft also includes a mechanism to allow selecting
>         which one of the two signaling mechanisms to use.
>          
>         In my personal opinion, it'd be much cleaner and simpler to just specify
>         one signaling mechanism, but this is up to the WG to decide.
>          
>         Comments, reviews and discussion on this new revision would be welcome.
>         Hopefully we could get at least a new revision before Toronto.
>          
>         Thanks,
>          
>         Carlos
>         
>         
>         
>         
>         _______________________________________________
>         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,
> 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, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
> _______________________________________________
> netext mailing list
> netext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext