Re: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr-04

Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com> Thu, 15 September 2011 19:00 UTC

Return-Path: <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.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 BA65F11E815A for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 12:00:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.355
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.355 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.244, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 oWQe1ZlzVE5d for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 12:00:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imr4.ericy.com (imr4.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08DE611E810B for <netext@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 12:00:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eusaamw0706.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.31]) by imr4.ericy.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id p8FJ2NB5025949; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 14:02:27 -0500
Received: from [142.133.10.107] (147.117.20.214) by smtps-am.internal.ericsson.com (147.117.20.31) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.137.0; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 15:02:22 -0400
Message-ID: <4E724ABD.4080408@ericsson.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 14:58:05 -0400
From: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.21) Gecko/20110831 Thunderbird/3.1.13
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com" <Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com>
References: <21E7D9BD69CC7241AAE00F4EA183B719083E70@008-AM1MPN1-024.mgdnok.nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <21E7D9BD69CC7241AAE00F4EA183B719083E70@008-AM1MPN1-024.mgdnok.nokia.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr@tools.ietf.org>, "netext@ietf.org" <netext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr-04
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: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 19:00:22 -0000

Hi Raj,
  Thanks for the review. I have submitted version -05 resolving most of
the issues you raised in this mail. Please find my responses to the open
issues inline.


Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com wrote:
> 10. Sec 5:
> 
>>  As earlier, the LMA initiates LR as a response to some trigger
> 
>>  mechanism.
> 
>  
> 
> What trigger mechanism? Can you provide at least some examples?

The earlier versions of the draft contained example triggers but there
was some opposition to mentioning the type of triggers possible.

> 
>  
> 
> 11.
> 
>>   The tunnel between the MAGs is assumed to be established by means
> 
>>   outside the scope of this document.
> 
>  
> 
> It would be useful to at least provide some examples of the tunnel
> 
> establishment between MAGs from a completeness perspective. It looks
> 
> like handwaving at the moment.

I agree with you that it is handwavy, but I am not sure what to add
here. People wanted all kinds of tunnels here, IPv6, IPv4, GRE, USP,
IPsec etc. with either manual or dynamic creation. If you want a
specific scenario, I could add it here but if I remember correctly we
did not even manage to get consensus among the authors.

> 18. The IANA considerations section is poorly written and does not
> 
>     provide sufficient information to IANA regarding the actions
> 
>     needed from them. I would recommend revisiting this section.

I went through the section again and I am not sure what is missing here.
What information required by IANA do you think is missing?

Thanks
Suresh