Re: [netext] #15: use "update notification" for FMI/FMA

Hi Carlos,

Here is what Suresh wrote on a similar issue:

> What are we going to do with LRI/LRA defined in RFC 6705 by Suresh himself?

Nothing :-). The LRI is not a generic notification message. It cannot be
used for other purposes than LR.

FMI also is not a generic notification message, it is quite similar to LRI
in semantics.

Regards,

Behcet

On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 12:49 PM, netext issue tracker <
trac+netext@grenache.tools.ietf.org> wrote:

> #15: use "update notification" for FMI/FMA
>
>
> Comment (by cjbc@it.uc3m.es):
>
>  (apologies for not addressing this until now)
>
>  Since draft-krishnan-netext-update-notifications became draft-ietf-netext-
>  update-notifications, I'd be supportive of removing FMI/FMA and use the
>  notification message to trigger PBU/PBA for flow mobility purposes. I
>  think this would also help to address issue #17 (the MAG could also
>  request moving a flow to the LMA, covering the MN initiated handover
>  triggers documented there).
>
>  I'd like to ask the WG opinions on this: should we keep FMI/FMA or adopt
>  the use of update notifications?
>
> --
> -------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
>  Reporter:                           |       Owner:  draft-ietf-netext-
>   pierrick.seite@orange.com          |  pmipv6-flowmob@tools.ietf.org
>      Type:  enhancement              |      Status:  new
>  Priority:  major                    |   Milestone:
> Component:  pmipv6-flowmob           |     Version:
>  Severity:  -                        |  Resolution:
>  Keywords:                           |
> -------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
>
> Ticket URL: <
> https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/netext/trac/ticket/15#comment:1>
> netext <http://tools.ietf.org/netext/>
>
> _______________________________________________
> netext mailing list
> netext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
>