[netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-update-notifications-03

Basavaraj Patil <bpatil1@gmail.com> Wed, 08 May 2013 21:50 UTC

Return-Path: <bpatil1@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 908C921F8F69 for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 May 2013 14:50:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4uZclispxapc for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 May 2013 14:50:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oa0-f49.google.com (mail-oa0-f49.google.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D72621F8F6D for <netext@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 May 2013 14:50:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oa0-f49.google.com with SMTP id k14so1112277oag.36 for <netext@ietf.org>; Wed, 08 May 2013 14:50:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=/6I2cJav8FQX37/cleKo27wx/ZwJyncwNyGHHkUm7/Q=; b=ViLvVpOPxXGq4k6v59Y9foDKnNRjaQ1ZlrOXfgNAqYDqmL+oft3lOLk/PzUokTnLN5 LrJ1x+x8Yi8qEl4gR5ekRMbOxAM03LUQNIIAqzJAHcEJTxxQGrkJhXhGDXqEn7tzc1rr ZzDetm+PL1FRx1LY0/pyPAKVJx8gyDiU4lOcuA+U86zd9f4O+E88r+dWpgQxaERr4IV7 DCXscoZp91JzN+b6AACqeEHdkXtXG/R+KxMavJnU+P6HtpDrViZqF1SOuvg332hy9Rrr nDe+MAN0nPdDJkk/AAWwVxK1kpvQzubrchYge8ENF0UUryLRjgI4qiWHWpVHYeDWJnwT SaqA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id t3mr2809685obz.4.1368049813848; Wed, 08 May 2013 14:50:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 8 May 2013 14:50:13 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 16:50:13 -0500
Message-ID: <CAA5F1T29LitDBBdfWt13yaj4MXQnnKaP+Mews1HeXMFD8EPTMQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Basavaraj Patil <bpatil1@gmail.com>
To: "netext@ietf.org" <netext@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0141a5e4308e3b04dc3bebb5
Subject: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-update-notifications-03
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: Wed, 08 May 2013 21:50:19 -0000

My review of this I-D.



In order to ensure interoperability, the I-D should state that if an
LMA sends an Update notification to a MAG and does not receive an Ack,
then the MAG may not support the ability to update sessions.
The I-D should specify a backoff mechanism in terms of retransmitting
an update message from the LMA and stop after X number of messages
with no response.

The update notification message could be abused by the introduction of
a vendor specific notification reason. The specification should
mandate the registration of all notification reasons in IANA and not
allow any vendor specific types.


s/ These update notifications are exchanged using a Mobility
   Header message type specifically designed for this purpose./These
   update notifications are exchanged using a new Mobility
   Header message type specifically designed for this purpose.


The Introduction starts off as : "In some situations, there is a need
for the local mobility anchor ..."
This is pretty ambiguous. Please rephrase.

s/The base Proxy
   Mobile IPv6 specification does not have a provision for this./ The
   base Proxy Mobile IPv6 specification does not have a provision for
   sending unsolicited informational messages from the LMA to the

s/participation from the mobile node/participation by the mobile node

s/for the mobile node in Mobile IPv6 [RFC6275]/for the mobile node as
specified in Mobile IPv6 [RFC6275]

Q: ID states:
"One such scenario where such a mechanism is needed is when the local
   mobility anchor wants to inform the mobile access gateway that it
   needs to re-register mobility session for a mobile node."

In what scenario would the LMA want to inform the MAG that an MN needs
to be re-registered?

s/and so it can obtain the updated policy/in order to update the
policies associated with the mobility session of an MN.

s/or and updated IPv4/or an updated IPv4

Basavaraj Patil