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

<> Thu, 15 September 2011 22:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47F7321F89BA for <>; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 15:09:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.65
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.65 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.051, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C7le3l+p4Qt9 for <>; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 15:09:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 921F721F893C for <>; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 15:09:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id p8FMB92x007157; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 01:11:10 +0300
Received: from ([]) by over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 16 Sep 2011 01:11:09 +0300
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 00:11:09 +0200
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.007; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 00:11:01 +0200
From: <>
To: <>
Thread-Topic: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr-04
Thread-Index: AcxGcYt8Segd5A1bSEOc4ChY6g6NHQtVxdiA///iOYA=
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 22:11:01 +0000
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Sep 2011 22:11:09.0105 (UTC) FILETIME=[5F10C210:01CC73F4]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
Subject: Re: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr-04
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: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 22:09:02 -0000

Thanks for revising the I-D and addressing the comments. Regarding the
open issues my comments inline below:

On 9/15/11 1:58 PM, "ext Suresh Krishnan" <>

>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.
> 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.

The statement: "As earlier, the LMA initiates LR as a response to some
   mechanism." is quite vague. What is the 'As earlier' referring to? Is
it the previous scenario? If so, reference it.

How about rephrasing it as :
"As described in Sec x .y, the LMA initiates LR as a response to a
trigger. The trigger itself is implementation dependent. "

>> 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.

Without actually specifying at least one default tunneling mechanism, how
would you achieve interoperability between MAGs in a PMIP6 domain? Whether
it is IP-in-IP or GRE, it does not matter. I would recommend that the I-D
specify the details about the tunneling between the MAGs. I hope you can
discuss and get consensus among the authors and from WG members.

>> 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?

Its fine. I was thinking that maybe the format specified in I-D:
draft-ietf-netext-redirect-10.txt (IANA Considerations) would make it
easier for IANA.