IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netext] draft-netext-pmipv6-flowmob

"Rajeev Koodli (rkoodli)" <rkoodli@cisco.com> Fri, 30 August 2013 04:58 UTC

Return-Path: <rkoodli@cisco.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 F364F21E808C for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 21:58:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, 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 6uAKIzB4vthy for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 21:58:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0BF421F8F6D for <netext@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 21:58:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1183; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1377838690; x=1379048290; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=vytCHPNmd44GEddKUTAkHO0KXXEabt1PUosWemR63bg=; b=TtTxBK9GFUih1iOJpmeCI1avU3wtX9Q6SyWIWDOQ0T2v6fZF/w/qdZyY uAx7O9L08V+HRd3bhZhu6CxOjQYoRRIAgHymvzKDzXFOXrzAXLDx2FwFU 8AWAZknTVvGpAElX0Zd4/0U9FuPPgqDGlhGBqmVrtenR+ElAPUp/ecDJK 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AkgGAPclIFKtJXHB/2dsb2JhbABagwc1UcBPgSAWbQeCJgEEAQEBawsSAQgiSwslAgQOBQiHeQy5QQSPQQIxB4McgQADiHygXYMggio
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,989,1367971200"; d="scan'208";a="253574458"
Received: from rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com ([173.37.113.193]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Aug 2013 04:58:07 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x13.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x13.cisco.com [173.37.183.87]) by rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r7U4w7Qm025643 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 30 Aug 2013 04:58:07 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.9.176]) by xhc-rcd-x13.cisco.com ([173.37.183.87]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 23:58:07 -0500
From: "Rajeev Koodli (rkoodli)" <rkoodli@cisco.com>
To: "cjbc@it.uc3m.es" <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
Thread-Topic: [netext] draft-netext-pmipv6-flowmob
Thread-Index: AQHOoEglA1rPv9c0Oku85jON9Yb335mtb8EA//+pLYA=
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 04:58:07 +0000
Message-ID: <7C52FDEBC843C44DBAF2CA6A30662C6D0159CEDB@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <1377832130.4300.0.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.2.130206
x-originating-ip: [10.21.150.225]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <D354B6E1C0C3044D8AAAC355542958C0@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "netext@ietf.org" <netext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [netext] draft-netext-pmipv6-flowmob
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: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 04:58:22 -0000

Hi Carlos,

I have just a related comment (chair hat off):


On 8/29/13 8:08 PM, "Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano" <cjbc@it.uc3m.es> wrote:

>
>In any case, I'm about to submit a revision that addresses some of the
>issues raised by Pierrick. I'm still working on other changes, such as
>the use of the update-notifications, as well as trying to simplify the
>document as much as possible. I hope that this will also address some of
>your concerns. So please, wait to -08 (will be out in the next couple of
>weeks) and check if you are happier with that version.

I heard during the ID update at the Berlin meeting about the use of Update
Notification ID, in place of FMI/FMA? If that's the proposal, I am not for
it. Specifically, I do not want to overload the Update Notification (RFC
to be) with the semantics here. And, we should stick to the messages we
intended for the purpose and be self-contained.

Thanks.

-Rajeev




>
>Thanks,
>
>Carlos
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> 
>> Behcet
>> 
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>netext mailing list
>netext@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email