IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netext] Review of draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-sipto-option-03

<pierrick.seite@orange.com> Thu, 26 April 2012 08:03 UTC

Return-Path: <pierrick.seite@orange.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 B116821F860E for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 01:03:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 38M+58u499GZ for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 01:03:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com [195.101.245.16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C8BE21F85FC for <netext@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 01:03:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id DFE4C1074001; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:03:17 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.192.128.46]) by p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7EDFE301A1; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:03:17 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ftrdmel0.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.56]) by ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:03:18 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:03:17 +0200
Message-ID: <843DA8228A1BA74CA31FB4E111A5C46202520BEC@ftrdmel0.rd.francetelecom.fr>
In-Reply-To: <CBBDD33D.4402C%sgundave@cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [netext] Review of draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-sipto-option-03
Thread-Index: Ac0jORJBcxcV3Khp6EezpP5Ptz+elwAQ5TwA
References: <1328515089.3833.8.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es> <CBBDD33D.4402C%sgundave@cisco.com>
From: pierrick.seite@orange.com
To: sgundave@cisco.com, cjbc@it.uc3m.es, netext@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Apr 2012 08:03:18.0671 (UTC) FILETIME=[0A7489F0:01CD2383]
Subject: Re: [netext] Review of draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-sipto-option-03
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, 26 Apr 2012 08:03:21 -0000

Hi Sri,

Thanks for the update. I've no further comments.

Pierrick

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : netext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:netext-bounces@ietf.org] De la
> part de Sri Gundavelli
> Envoyé : jeudi 26 avril 2012 01:14
> À : cjbc@it.uc3m.es; netext@ietf.org
> Objet : Re: [netext] Review of draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-sipto-option-03
> 
> Hi Carlos, Yokota-san, Marco, Pierrick, Ahmad & folks ...
> 
> Thanks for all the review comments. Please let us know if there any
> comments
> missing.
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-sipto-option-04
> 
> 
> Regards
> Sri
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 2/5/12 11:58 PM, "Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano" <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
> wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > Some additional comments after a quick review of the draft:
> >
> > - Section 3.1: I think there is a problem with the references,
> because
> > it appears in thge text: "If the received Proxy Binding Update
> includes
> > the IP Traffic Offload Selector option Section 4". I guess it should
> > say: "If the received Proxy Binding Update includes the IP Traffic
> > Offload Selector option (Section 4)". There are more instances
> referring
> > to other sections.
> >
> > - Section 4. The IPTS options has the field "TS Format", which
> resembles
> > the option defined in RFC 6089 for the traffic selector sub-option,
> and
> > in this way re-uses the binary TS defined for IPv4 in RFC 6088.
> However,
> > the draft defines a new IANA space for this "TS Format" field, which
> > might be a bit confusing. Can we just re-use RFC 6089 space (now it
> only
> > has three values reserved: "0" that should not be used, and "1" for
> > binary TS IPv4, and "2" for binary TS IPv6)? I think we would avoid
> some
> > redundancy that might lead to confusion. If we do that, the draft
> would
> > probably need to define a flag or something to catch what it is now
> done
> > by putting a "TS Format" equal to "0".
> >
> > - By doing offloading, there are issues associated to handovers (if
> the
> > mobile node moves, any traffic that was being offloaded would need to
> be
> > restarted). I guess some text on that would be helfpul.
> >
> > Hope this helps,
> >
> > Carlos
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netext mailing list
> netext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email