Re: [netext] Needs of traffic spec. on MAG?

[Sri Gundavelli <[e-mail]>]

Hi Behcet,

We can surely work on the leveraging the options, or updating the message
structure as needed. This is as part of evolving the WG document based on
the feedback. Carlos or others will not have any issue with that. Inputs
welcome.



Regards
Sri



On 8/9/10 8:33 AM, "Behcet Sarikaya" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Sri,
>   That is not really the point.
> 
> The point is that Flow Identification Mobility Option
> defined in draft-ietf-mext-flow-binding-06
> has a sub-option called
> Traffic Selector sub-option
> 
> which can carry the TS.
> 
> This is to Carlos:
> Why are we reinventing the wheel? The sub-option has already been defined
> there 
> (in Section 
> 
> 4.2.1.4.)!
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Behcet
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Sri Gundavelli <[e-mail]>
>> To: Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>> Cc: [e-mail]
>> Sent: Sat, August 7, 2010 2:38:51 PM
>> Subject: Re: [netext] Needs of traffic spec. on MAG?
>> 
>> Hi Behcet:
>> 
>>>> You are right, we have to leverage the work done in  MEXT. The  Traffic
>>>> Selectors for IPv4 and IPv6 flows can be  from the mext binary TS  work. I
>>>> think, Carlos did provide the  TS option with a opaque field for  including
>>>> the filter. 
>>> 
>>> Current definition is only allowing TS like binary TS of  George to be used.
>>> There could be others like language based flow  descriptions proposed in the
>>> past. Is this reusing mext work?
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> Sure. Currently, as you say, George's IPv4 and IPv6 binary  traffic selectors
>> are referenced as traffic selectors. However, Carlos chose  a variable length
>> TS field, so in future we can write Traffic Selectors in  English, Spanish,
>> Turkish ... So, if you have one, just write that selector  in your favorite
>> metalanguage and carlos can point to  that.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Sri
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
>