Re: [netlmm] I-D Action:draft-ietf-netlmm-lma-discovery-05.txt

jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> Wed, 15 September 2010 11:51 UTC

Return-Path: <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: netlmm@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netlmm@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4D583A6BA8 for <netlmm@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Sep 2010 04:51:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KseuwsodW5Wh for <netlmm@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Sep 2010 04:51:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AB5C3A6BA6 for <netlmm@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Sep 2010 04:51:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wyi11 with SMTP id 11so118278wyi.31 for <netlmm@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Sep 2010 04:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:subject:mime-version :content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding :message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=lMnCgTh9LNZ3y4gbKlsFkg8ssbao6N7DYGzOYWUYB0I=; b=Ec0FQHGODPSbitB9Vex3QcWCGlGisqgVyfn4jYC9LPGKTuzga/0SdWOfwFAtHyTgFd 9hW8a9qrNUKSdvUatM7lnTP5eMHI7DTqjAYXmrbcVeiWEVs3LVfSsj8x6t1Lk9yB/4Za sgycREBwFN0LC5J+4WBtTVtjeYtm/AB+ntDTY=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; b=bT+5wr0/RHdLjBgfTp3RSm38lsXRiMwdcSit4jAknIwBs9WldA8YyaaqO6/QEzgKZO Bn3YIr8zxFz+XjKrux9xEH+69oAhS/mFCwRj6ZZZRMEqbkOl8l3GnCUBwpLfozFMzEB0 12Rdaxcx66wWy/PKMM8UYiIqHzbUJ1vwMNTFc=
Received: by 10.216.50.18 with SMTP id y18mr5137392web.113.1284551495826; Wed, 15 Sep 2010 04:51:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.254.1.37] ([192.100.123.77]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u32sm922285weq.11.2010.09.15.04.51.33 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 15 Sep 2010 04:51:34 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1078)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <83313.87762.qm@web111402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 14:51:40 +0300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D0B210ED-DA43-42DB-BF54-45225F4AA253@gmail.com>
References: <20100913094506.6B51C3A6954@core3.amsl.com> <890653.19874.qm@web111402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4C8EF580.7070700@gmail.com> <47245.1688.qm@web111415.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <CE4ECD0E-F23F-4FB3-9CDB-BF33C46FCE23@gmail.com> <83313.87762.qm@web111402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
To: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya@ieee.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1078)
Cc: netlmm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netlmm] I-D Action:draft-ietf-netlmm-lma-discovery-05.txt
X-BeenThere: netlmm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETLMM working group discussion list <netlmm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm>, <mailto:netlmm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netlmm>
List-Post: <mailto:netlmm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netlmm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm>, <mailto:netlmm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 11:51:14 -0000

Inline..


On Sep 14, 2010, at 10:37 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:

> Hi Jouni,
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
>> To: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya@ieee.org>
>> Cc: Vijay Devarapalli <dvijay@gmail.com>om>; netlmm@ietf.org
>> Sent: Tue, September 14, 2010 11:43:27 AM
>> Subject: Re: [netlmm] I-D Action:draft-ietf-netlmm-lma-discovery-05.txt
>> 
>> Hi Behcet,
>> 
>> 
>> On Sep 14, 2010, at 6:52 PM, Behcet Sarikaya  wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> ----- Original Message ----
>>>> From: Vijay  Devarapalli <dvijay@gmail.com>
>>>> To: Behcet  Sarikaya <sarikaya@ieee.org>
>>>> Cc: Behcet  Sarikaya <behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com>om>; jouni  korhonen 
>>>> <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>om>; netlmm@ietf.org
>>>> Sent: Mon,  September 13, 2010 11:09:36 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [netlmm] I-D  Action:draft-ietf-netlmm-lma-discovery-05.txt
>>>> 
>>>> On  9/13/10 3:49 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
>>>>> Hi  Jouni,
>>>>>   Thanks for updating the  draft.
>>>>> Reading it I noticed that in  Section 3.3on  Constructing the LMA FQDN from 
>> 
>> a
>>>>> Service   Name
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> can you  please mention a service name in  QNAME format:
>>>>> "_pmip6_ipv6.example.com"
>>>>> where example.com can come  from MN's  NAI or the operator domain.
>>>> 
>>>> No, PMIPv6  is not a service. So we shouldn't  do this.
>>> 
>>> Why not? mip6  IS a service name. We do need pmip6 service name as well, 
>> don't 
>> 
>>> you  think?
>>> 
>>> Also reading the draft's Section 3.3 on service name  (Constructing the LMA 
>> FQDN 
>> 
>>> from a Service Name to be precise), it  totally sounds like a 3GPP document.
>>> Remember this is IETF work. IETF  defined DNS and PMIPv6. 
>> 
>> I assume you did not notice the references that  were given as examples in 
>> Section 3.3? They totally seem to point in 3GPP's  general direction.
> 
> 
> Of course I did. I know that 3GPP does favor DNS discovery, in almost everything 
> they use DNS discovery. 
> 
>> 
>>> IETF can define a service name which is operator  and SDO independent. If 
>> such a 
>> 
>>> service name is defined, there is even  no need to standardize it in other 
>> SDOs 
>> 
>>> like 3GPP. Operators can use it  immediately.
>> 
>> IETF can.. but does not have to. I like the current content  of Section 7. For 
> 
>> the record, the 3GPP boat has already sailed. Not much to do  there.
>> 
> 
> I guess you mean 
> 19.4.3    Service and Protocol service names for 3GPP 
> in 23.003. Yes they defined service names for pmip like 3gpp-pgw:x-s8-pmip 
> indicating s8 interface on a P-GW.
> 
> Of course this is good and maybe you should specifically mention this in Sec. 
> 3.3.

I don't really see a reason for that. Especially when the text in 3.3 refers to APNs as an explicit example of service names rather than S-NAPRT app-service/protocol.

> 
> However the above service name is 3GPP specific. I think it is advisable to 
> define an IETF service name so that everybody can use it.

You are now mixing stuff here.. service as a identifier for network behind a gateway is different than a role/capability of a box.

> 
> These are my points.

.

> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Behcet
> 
> 

- Jouni


>