IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netext] Review of draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-sipto-option-03

Ahmad Muhanna <asmuhanna@gmail.com> Wed, 25 April 2012 23:37 UTC

Return-Path: <asmuhanna@gmail.com>
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 14D6621E808F for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:37:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.203
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 7r7BELC5gwGg for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:37:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 824AD21E8082 for <netext@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:37:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obbwd20 with SMTP id wd20so801435obb.31 for <netext@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:37:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:message-id:cc:x-mailer:from:subject:date:to; bh=KLfYNE6tF0xgCd8+ai6o//O1LE3e9k+f2jsQgrJbNnI=; b=zPEk4G+kw8wQkMjigSOXiWjP8LEtzZ0lPWlsF0hbph39sPJphIz902ESAlgWRYA4bX 5phzIRrGw/f9p06BK1+EO3u7N3+A+thvN5KIHjVL5kkUAW/ySQHqzubW8G4FUPCBfaWu TPqKIRO6aCwFgCTTtnl0ocboebCeXHxorY4Z3dOmDmtH63NYP5hLrHcENtrY8AGcYi2W e+S/SPL2rg6sTsiNoVY2lt8FQefSqQnV5CKoMFXKxcZQkVHTaPlxTiIo2F9qEGFwsXRb zaAspredFliu0EOg7eMYo/gGD2AtbIRk/ravOOt6YIYPbwKIzzC+dgwxHd5Blb0cKPVE n3Fg==
Received: by 10.182.207.10 with SMTP id ls10mr5897085obc.9.1335397032145; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:37:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.50.189] ([216.138.88.105]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id hh2sm1515054obb.1.2012.04.25.16.37.10 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:37:11 -0700 (PDT)
References: <CBBDD33D.4402C%sgundave@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CBBDD33D.4402C%sgundave@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Message-Id: <8FEDFF7B-B098-43C1-9466-27DED5EDDD3C@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (9B179)
From: Ahmad Muhanna <asmuhanna@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:37:08 -0700
To: Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@cisco.com>
Cc: "netext@ietf.org" <netext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [netext] Review of draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-sipto-option-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, 25 Apr 2012 23:37:13 -0000

Thanks Sri for the update.
No further comments.

Regards,
Ahmad

On Apr 25, 2012, at 4:13 PM, Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@cisco.com> wrote:

> Hi Carlos, Yokota-san, Marco, Pierrick, Ahmad & folks ...
> 
> Thanks for all the review comments. Please let us know if there any comments
> missing.
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-sipto-option-04
> 
> 
> Regards
> Sri
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 2/5/12 11:58 PM, "Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano" <cjbc@it.uc3m.es> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Some additional comments after a quick review of the draft:
>> 
>> - Section 3.1: I think there is a problem with the references, because
>> it appears in thge text: "If the received Proxy Binding Update includes
>> the IP Traffic Offload Selector option Section 4". I guess it should
>> say: "If the received Proxy Binding Update includes the IP Traffic
>> Offload Selector option (Section 4)". There are more instances referring
>> to other sections.
>> 
>> - Section 4. The IPTS options has the field "TS Format", which resembles
>> the option defined in RFC 6089 for the traffic selector sub-option, and
>> in this way re-uses the binary TS defined for IPv4 in RFC 6088. However,
>> the draft defines a new IANA space for this "TS Format" field, which
>> might be a bit confusing. Can we just re-use RFC 6089 space (now it only
>> has three values reserved: "0" that should not be used, and "1" for
>> binary TS IPv4, and "2" for binary TS IPv6)? I think we would avoid some
>> redundancy that might lead to confusion. If we do that, the draft would
>> probably need to define a flag or something to catch what it is now done
>> by putting a "TS Format" equal to "0".
>> 
>> - By doing offloading, there are issues associated to handovers (if the
>> mobile node moves, any traffic that was being offloaded would need to be
>> restarted). I guess some text on that would be helfpul.
>> 
>> Hope this helps,
>> 
>> Carlos
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netext mailing list
> netext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email