Re: [netext] #15: use "update notification" for FMI/FMA

Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <cjbc@it.uc3m.es> Wed, 13 February 2013 19:45 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 E688A21E8040 for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 11:45:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cLrcxMjArRvS for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 11:45:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp02.uc3m.es (smtp02.uc3m.es [163.117.176.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6221421E803D for <netext@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 11:45:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp02.uc3m.es (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9926989465D; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 20:45:43 +0100 (CET)
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 AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: cjbc@smtp02.uc3m.es) by smtp02.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8D1C7767187; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 20:45:43 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <1360784743.4099.105.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es>
From: Carlos =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jes=FAs?= Bernardos Cano <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
To: sarikaya@ieee.org
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 20:45:43 +0100
In-Reply-To: <CAC8QAcfyubWwvnEn54hEojhWypMFdN-LJyS=ady4pGrzJLU_sQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <066.92fae5892dd47f6df59125978f3b0285@trac.tools.ietf.org> <081.da5e4c25a1a1923379bffc472009f9a0@trac.tools.ietf.org> <CAC8QAcfyubWwvnEn54hEojhWypMFdN-LJyS=ady4pGrzJLU_sQ@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.4.4-1
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1224-7.0.0.1014-19636.001
X-TM-AS-Result: No--25.287-7.0-31-1
X-imss-scan-details: No--25.287-7.0-31-1
Cc: netext@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netext] #15: use "update notification" for FMI/FMA
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: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 19:45:47 -0000

Hi Behcet,

So you suggest to keep using the FMI?

Carlos

On Wed, 2013-02-13 at 13:26 -0600, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
> Hi Carlos,
> 
> Here is what Suresh wrote on a similar issue:
> 
> > What are we going to do with LRI/LRA defined in RFC 6705 by Suresh himself?
> 
> Nothing :-). The LRI is not a generic notification message. It cannot be
> used for other purposes than LR.
> FMI also is not a generic notification message, it is quite similar to
> LRI in semantics.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Behcet
> 
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 12:49 PM, netext issue tracker <trac
> +netext@grenache.tools.ietf.org> wrote:
>         #15: use "update notification" for FMI/FMA
>         
>         
>         
>         Comment (by cjbc@it.uc3m.es):
>         
>          (apologies for not addressing this until now)
>         
>          Since draft-krishnan-netext-update-notifications became
>         draft-ietf-netext-
>          update-notifications, I'd be supportive of removing FMI/FMA
>         and use the
>          notification message to trigger PBU/PBA for flow mobility
>         purposes. I
>          think this would also help to address issue #17 (the MAG
>         could also
>          request moving a flow to the LMA, covering the MN initiated
>         handover
>          triggers documented there).
>         
>          I'd like to ask the WG opinions on this: should we keep
>         FMI/FMA or adopt
>          the use of update notifications?
>         
>         --
>         -------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
>          Reporter:                           |       Owner:
>          draft-ietf-netext-
>           pierrick.seite@orange.com          |
>          pmipv6-flowmob@tools.ietf.org
>              Type:  enhancement              |      Status:  new
>          Priority:  major                    |   Milestone:
>         Component:  pmipv6-flowmob           |     Version:
>         
>          Severity:  -                        |  Resolution:
>          Keywords:                           |
>         -------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
>         
>         Ticket URL:
>         <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/netext/trac/ticket/15#comment:1>
>         netext <http://tools.ietf.org/netext/>
>         
>         _______________________________________________
>         netext mailing list
>         netext@ietf.org
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
>         
>