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

[Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[e-mail]>]

Hi Behcet,

Your comments were also discussed during the meeting and on the mailing
list. I've edited the draft according to the WG consensus.

Please, check the new version of the draft, and if you have new
comments/issues, bring them up to the WG.

Thanks!

Carlos

On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 15:54 -0500, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
> 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)
> <[e-mail]> 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"
>         <[e-mail]> 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)"
>         <[e-mail]>
>         >> 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)"
>         <[e-mail]>
>         >>wrote:
>         >> >
>         >> >>
>         >> >>Hi Carlos,
>         >> >>
>         >> >>
>         >> >>On 10/21/13 3:24 PM, "Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano"
>         <[e-mail]>
>         >> >>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
>         >> >>[e-mail]
>         >> >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
>         >> >
>         >>
>         >
>         >
>         
>         _______________________________________________
>         netext mailing list
>         [e-mail]
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
>         
> 
>