Re: [netext] [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-08.txt]

Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com> Tue, 22 October 2013 20:54 UTC

Return-Path: <sarikaya2012@gmail.com>
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 0A13711E8245 for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 13:54:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.05
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.05 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.549, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 FA1lKQUB3Mgv for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 13:54:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-x22d.google.com (mail-lb0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1040D11E81CD for <netext@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 13:54:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lb0-f173.google.com with SMTP id w7so22568lbi.4 for <netext@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 13:54:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=AJBKdeiBZFXfHebYgrQiKa9PdD1fyeWX9DAv6ku9f0E=; b=GgWn0BwI/MraUDoIfAbKrytW4pCvkanQakgPXHEYEXYjkPeGQyAuf1Mbwg9HrT1myL bocHIpxUN1cpMvbQel+hGwJWU54arcNOTJgmVmXnx81ue5vhsYPz3c7PzKCRWsXM8ukT OmYLvWkwqprIiVGsQyFsU5ohiwFEIUShMMvA4HOtREVCrjuaU2Hw5lbDuDMoyvxD+jmo kvIGV7C5lW9E+mcXzNyHOGo8WMpn9nvB18m8l3YZJZKMigC+TR4WKngFyHLOr2wt6nsl XtMeAuPiFwdaSieITVQXyWv7GDKw2BJw9PwtOx55/0J4TUpWKYXrxRhqGKryaSRtjBLw CVrg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.155.70 with SMTP id vu6mr2943694lbb.41.1382475258987; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 13:54:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.114.98.227 with HTTP; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 13:54:18 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <7C52FDEBC843C44DBAF2CA6A30662C6D0162233E@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com>
References: <1382455119.3908.60.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es> <7C52FDEBC843C44DBAF2CA6A30662C6D0162233E@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 15:54:18 -0500
Message-ID: <CAC8QAce_fqHdBFLxw=ySdzYAMH2oRbphu-Nkbh9kGRU9mucV2Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com>
To: "Rajeev Koodli (rkoodli)" <rkoodli@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e0115fe1eb90bf004e95a9a18"
Cc: "netext@ietf.org" <netext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [netext] [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-08.txt]
X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org
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, 22 Oct 2013 20:54:22 -0000

Carlos,

In addition to what Rajeev said, I had many comments.

In fact I don't remember at all any comment that asked to remove FM
messages :-).

What happened to those comments?

Regards,

Behcet


On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Rajeev Koodli (rkoodli) <rkoodli@cisco.com
> wrote:

>
> Carlos,
>
> I raised the issue of FMI vs UPN right after the Berlin meeting.
> As said, I may have missed any agreement on this.. But I did not see any
> response to how/when this was reached (if any).
>
> Please spend some time going on this at Vancouver.
>
> Thanks.
>
> -Rajeev
>
>
> On 10/22/13 8:18 AM, "Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano" <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
> wrote:
>
> >Hi Rajeev,
> >
> >On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 05:22 +0000, Rajeev Koodli (rkoodli) wrote:
> >> Right, we needed to discuss this before putting text - especially I saw
> >>no
> >> response to my email about this after the last IETF meeting.
> >
> >BTW, I presented all the proposed changes that have been incorporated in
> >-07 and -08 during the Berlin meeting
> >(http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/87/slides/slides-87-netext-6.pdf).
> >
> >You are specifically pointing to issue #15, brought by Pierrick a while
> >ago (http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/netext/trac/ticket/15). This was
> >discussed before Berlin on the mailing list and I responded to the
> >issue. I presented the proposed changes in slide 9 of my presentation
> >and there was consensus on going for it.
> >
> >All the proposed changes were agreed by the WG, so as the editor of the
> >document I simply proceeded to apply them.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Carlos
> >
> >>
> >> In particular, I am not sure about having to implement the UPN spec for
> >> one to do FM. Let's discuss what this means; may be I don't fully
> >>follow..
> >> Perhaps Carlos could spend some time at Vancouver on this.
> >>
> >> It would help me if the following is shown with some text for the ID.
> >> I don't see what the text duplication is. If the text is there for UPN,
> >>we
> >> can re-use it.
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >> -Rajeev
> >>
> >>
> >> On 10/21/13 4:16 PM, "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <sgundave@cisco.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Hi Carlos/Rajeev:
> >> >
> >> >I agree, we did not resolve this issue one way or the other.
> >> >
> >> >How about the following ?
> >> >
> >> >We can still the keep the FMI message, its use and the text in the
> >>spec.
> >> >No changes are needed.  But, under the wrappers, FMI message can be a
> >>UPN
> >> >message with a NR code of "FMI". So, in the format section, we point to
> >> >the UPN message.
> >> >
> >> >Otherwise, we have to add all the considerations around security, IPSec
> >> >PAD entries, IPv4 transport, ..etc and that is not there currently in
> >>the
> >> >spec. May end up duplicating lot of text. Even for implementation, its
> >> >additional bit of text dealing with a new message type.
> >> >
> >> >This has least impact on the existing text. Else, we need to revert to
> >>the
> >> >prev version.
> >> >
> >> >Is this a reasonable way-forward ?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Regards
> >> >Sri
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >On 10/21/13 3:30 PM, "Rajeev Koodli (rkoodli)" <rkoodli@cisco.com>
> >>wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>Hi Carlos,
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>On 10/21/13 3:24 PM, "Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano" <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
> >> >>wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>Hi,
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Following the discussion during the last meeting, I've updated the
> >> >>>draft. As requested by the WG, it now uses the Update Notifications
> >>for
> >> >>>Proxy Mobile IPv6.
> >> >>
> >> >>Hmm? I don't recall any discussion on this..Perhaps I missed the
> >> >>response(s) to my email.
> >> >>We need to discuss this :)
> >> >>
> >> >>-Rajeev
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Comments are welcome. I'd like to ask people that submitted an issue
> >>to
> >> >>>the tracker to see if you are happy with the revision (and close the
> >> >>>issue if that is the case).
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Thanks,
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Carlos
> >> >>
> >> >>_______________________________________________
> >> >>netext mailing list
> >> >>netext@ietf.org
> >> >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> netext mailing list
> netext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
>