Re: [netext] #12: missing considerations on how to maintain consistent forwarding policies

"netext issue tracker" <> Wed, 13 February 2013 18:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7D4C21F8821 for <>; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 10:24:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WbkKpBZbILtj for <>; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 10:24:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 425DC21F8816 for <>; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 10:24:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([]:49558 ident=www-data) by with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1U5h0m-0001Cz-3s; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 19:24:52 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: netext issue tracker <>
X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3
Precedence: bulk
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software
X-Trac-Project: netext
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 18:24:52 -0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 12
In-Reply-To: <>
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on; SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Resent-Message-Id: <>
Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 10:24:53 -0800
Subject: Re: [netext] #12: missing considerations on how to maintain consistent forwarding policies
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 18:24:58 -0000

#12: missing considerations on how to maintain consistent forwarding policies

Comment (by

 (apologies for not addressing this until now)

 I agree policy consistency is critical, and this is actually reflected in
 the draft. However, since the charter does not allows any type of IP
 signaling between the MAG and LMA, specifying any type of policy alignment
 signaling as part of the document seems to be clearly out of the scope.
 The consensus I got from the WG (based on current charter boundaries) was
 to leave that unspecified, so it can be done using L2 signaling for
 example (and be specified by other SDOs).

 Do you have any suggestion on how to give clues without specifying a
 solution in the document? Would it be enough to provide informative
 examples (e.g., conveying that info as part of L2 signaling)?

 Reporter:                           |       Owner:  draft-ietf-netext-          |
     Type:  defect                   |      Status:  new
 Priority:  major                    |   Milestone:
Component:  pmipv6-flowmob           |     Version:
 Severity:  Active WG Document       |  Resolution:
 Keywords:                           |

Ticket URL: <>
netext <>