Re: [netext] AD review of draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr

[Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]>]

On 01/02/2012 06:04 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
> I was looking at the state of my drafts today, and noticed that I had missed to send a reply to your question, Suresh.
> 
> 
>>
>>>>      All the Localized routing messages use a new mobility header type
>>>>      (TBA1).
>>>>      The Localized Routing Initiation, described inSection 9.1<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr-07#section-9.1>   and the
>>>>      Localized Routing Acknowledgment, described inSection 9.2<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr-07#section-9.2>   require a
>>>>      single Mobility Header Type (TBA1) from the Mobility Header Types
>>>>      registry athttp://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters
>>>>
>>> This seems odd. Usually, a message and its acknowledgment have different message types. TBA1 and TBA2... I can see that you have the R flag, but this isn't the usual way to define new MH messages.
>> I do not have a strong preference one way or another, but the last two
>> MH messages for Binding Revocation (RFC5846) and Heartbeat (RFC5847)
>> seem to be using a shared MH type for both the request and a response.
>> Let me know if you want me to change this and I will do so.
> 
> I think it is better to use separate message types. That was the original design from RFC 3775.

Thanks Jari. Will do.

Regards
Suresh