IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netext] AD review of draft-ietf-netext-bulk-re-registration

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Tue, 22 November 2011 19:00 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06B1011E8083 for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Nov 2011 11:00:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.533
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.533 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.066, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JWMJW-Y1b6yp for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Nov 2011 11:00:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B54811E8082 for <netext@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Nov 2011 11:00:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAB532CC31; Tue, 22 Nov 2011 21:00:22 +0200 (EET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7mrw+zMS0aps; Tue, 22 Nov 2011 21:00:22 +0200 (EET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD0F02CC43; Tue, 22 Nov 2011 21:00:20 +0200 (EET)
Message-ID: <4ECBF141.6010607@piuha.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 11:00:17 -0800
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@cisco.com>
References: <CAF11B8B.31492%sgundave@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAF11B8B.31492%sgundave@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "netext@ietf.org" <netext@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-netext-bulk-re-registration@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netext] AD review of draft-ietf-netext-bulk-re-registration
X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " <netext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netext>, <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netext>
List-Post: <mailto:netext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext>, <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 19:00:24 -0000

Sri,

>
> The first quoted paragraph seems to claim that both sides can group devices
> per their own desires. This does not seem to be supported by the rest of the
> specification, as the LMA will override whatever suggestion was made by the
> MAG. This may be fine, but I would change the first paragraph as follows:
>

> We allowed both the nodes to perform group operations. A given session may
> be assigned a MAG-specific group identifier and also an LMA-specific group
> identifier. Probably it needs corrections in couple of places and in the
> illustration.
>
>
>

You say you allowed, but I don't actually see the functionality. You can have the MAG set it, you can have LMA set it, but it is not possible for *both* to set it. If the LMA wants to dictate group IDs, then the IDs that the MAG used no longer can be used. Or am I missing something?

Jari

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email