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

[<[e-mail]>]

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" <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>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.
>
>
>[e-mail] 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
trigger
   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.

-Raj

>
>Thanks
>Suresh