Re: [netext] AD review of draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr

Suresh Krishnan <> Fri, 09 December 2011 06:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBB6F21F8531 for <>; Thu, 8 Dec 2011 22:44:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.139
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.139 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.460, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gKJ0Cx6mPQ7a for <>; Thu, 8 Dec 2011 22:44:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABC9521F84ED for <>; Thu, 8 Dec 2011 22:44:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id pB96ihDe014644; Fri, 9 Dec 2011 00:44:49 -0600
Received: from [] ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Fri, 9 Dec 2011 01:44:41 -0500
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 01:42:45 -0500
From: Suresh Krishnan <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jari Arkko <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [netext] AD review of draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2011 06:44:56 -0000

Hi Jari,
  Thanks for the review. I have made most of the changes you suggested,
but I have one question.

Jari Arkko wrote:
> I have reviewed this draft.
> It is in good shape and almost ready to move forward. I did find a couple of issues, however, and the most serious one of these is the one about tear-down. Please fix this and submit a new draft so that I can initiate an IETF last call.
> ...
>>     All the Localized routing messages use a new mobility header type
>>     (TBA1).
>>     The Localized Routing Initiation, described inSection 9.1  <>  and the
>>     Localized Routing Acknowledgment, described inSection 9.2  <>  require a
>>     single Mobility Header Type (TBA1) from the Mobility Header Types
>>     registry at
> This seems odd. Usually, a message and its acknowledgment have different message types. TBA1 and TBA2... I can see that you have the R flag, but this isn't the usual way to define new MH messages.

I do not have a strong preference one way or another, but the last two
MH messages for Binding Revocation (RFC5846) and Heartbeat (RFC5847)
seem to be using a shared MH type for both the request and a response.
Let me know if you want me to change this and I will do so.