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

["Rajeev Koodli (rkoodli)" <[e-mail]>]

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
>> >
>> 
>
>