Re: [netext] [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-08.txt]

Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <cjbc@it.uc3m.es> Tue, 22 October 2013 07:23 UTC

Return-Path: <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
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 5670111E84BE for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 00:23:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.239
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.239 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.060, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 x9Dzb7LSElbU for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 00:23:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp01.uc3m.es (smtp01.uc3m.es [163.117.176.131]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CEEA11E816B for <netext@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 00:23:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp01.uc3m.es (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E308C35CEC; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 09:22:59 +0200 (CEST)
X-uc3m-safe: yes
X-uc3m-safe: yes
Received: from [163.117.139.72] (acorde.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.72]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: cjbc@smtp01.uc3m.es) by smtp01.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 91D5DC34DE6; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 09:22:59 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <1382426579.3908.2.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es>
From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
To: "Rajeev Koodli (rkoodli)" <rkoodli@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 09:22:59 +0200
In-Reply-To: <7C52FDEBC843C44DBAF2CA6A30662C6D01621F8F@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com>
References: <7C52FDEBC843C44DBAF2CA6A30662C6D01621F8F@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com>
Organization: Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.8.5-2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1224-7.0.0.1014-20234.005
Cc: "netext@ietf.org" <netext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [netext] [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-08.txt]
X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: cjbc@it.uc3m.es
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 Oct 2013 07:23:06 -0000

Hi Rajeev,

Apologies for not replying to your first e-mail. I added the text
because it was the agreement after the discussion we had on the issue
tracker and during the meeting. But I agree we can spend time at
Vancouver on this.

Carlos

On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 05:22 +0000, Rajeev Koodli (rkoodli) wrote:
> Right, we needed to discuss this before putting text - especially I saw no
> response to my email about this after the last IETF meeting.
> 
> In particular, I am not sure about having to implement the UPN spec for
> one to do FM. Let's discuss what this means; may be I don't fully follow..
> Perhaps Carlos could spend some time at Vancouver on this.
> 
> It would help me if the following is shown with some text for the ID.
> I don't see what the text duplication is. If the text is there for UPN, we
> can re-use it.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> -Rajeev
> 
> 
> On 10/21/13 4:16 PM, "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <sgundave@cisco.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >Hi Carlos/Rajeev:
> >
> >I agree, we did not resolve this issue one way or the other.
> >
> >How about the following ?
> >
> >We can still the keep the FMI message, its use and the text in the spec.
> >No changes are needed.  But, under the wrappers, FMI message can be a UPN
> >message with a NR code of "FMI". So, in the format section, we point to
> >the UPN message.
> >
> >Otherwise, we have to add all the considerations around security, IPSec
> >PAD entries, IPv4 transport, ..etc and that is not there currently in the
> >spec. May end up duplicating lot of text. Even for implementation, its
> >additional bit of text dealing with a new message type.
> >
> >This has least impact on the existing text. Else, we need to revert to the
> >prev version.
> >
> >Is this a reasonable way-forward ?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Regards
> >Sri
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >On 10/21/13 3:30 PM, "Rajeev Koodli (rkoodli)" <rkoodli@cisco.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>Hi Carlos,
> >>
> >>
> >>On 10/21/13 3:24 PM, "Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano" <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>Hi,
> >>>
> >>>Following the discussion during the last meeting, I've updated the
> >>>draft. As requested by the WG, it now uses the Update Notifications for
> >>>Proxy Mobile IPv6.
> >>
> >>Hmm? I don't recall any discussion on this..Perhaps I missed the
> >>response(s) to my email.
> >>We need to discuss this :)
> >>
> >>-Rajeev
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>Comments are welcome. I'd like to ask people that submitted an issue to
> >>>the tracker to see if you are happy with the revision (and close the
> >>>issue if that is the case).
> >>>
> >>>Thanks,
> >>>
> >>>Carlos
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>netext mailing list
> >>netext@ietf.org
> >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
> >
>