[netext] Additional review of ID draft-ietf-netext-access-network-option-00

"MELIA, TELEMACO (TELEMACO)" <telemaco.melia@alcatel-lucent.com> Wed, 02 November 2011 15:19 UTC

Return-Path: <telemaco.melia@alcatel-lucent.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 6600B21F8ED5 for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Nov 2011 08:19:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.248
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.248 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 2faSYC9Jz6sg for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Nov 2011 08:19:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smail6.alcatel.fr (smail6.alcatel.fr [62.23.212.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABB5A21F8E9D for <netext@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Nov 2011 08:19:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB02.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB02.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.62]) by smail6.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id pA2FJoRA022177 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT) for <netext@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Nov 2011 16:19:51 +0100
Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSE1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.111]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB02.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.62]) with mapi; Wed, 2 Nov 2011 16:19:36 +0100
From: "MELIA, TELEMACO (TELEMACO)" <telemaco.melia@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "netext@ietf.org" <netext@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 16:19:33 +0100
Thread-Topic: Additional review of ID draft-ietf-netext-access-network-option-00
Thread-Index: AcyZctLn9/RO8RuPR5exeaKicfkAEA==
Message-ID: <3D6C64F2D792B540BAAEBCEF6509363B0EEC2A0F0D@FRMRSSXCHMBSE1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_3D6C64F2D792B540BAAEBCEF6509363B0EEC2A0F0DFRMRSSXCHMBSE_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.84
Subject: [netext] Additional review of ID draft-ietf-netext-access-network-option-00
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, 02 Nov 2011 15:19:54 -0000

Hello,

As requested here follows my review.

The document is generally well written and understandable.

Introduction: I know that we are not supposed to say how a LMA uses the info contained in an ANI but more context (references) would not harm. Why talking about 802.11 only?

Section 3: If how the MAG discovers ANI from attached MNs is out of scope then you should state DHCP method as an example. There are other ways of doing this, or you list all of them.

Section 4: why not defining a generic ANI option not specific to WIFI? Else we should clearly make the IF WIFI specific.

Had a couple of issues more that Carlos already mentioned.

Thanks
telemaco