Re: [netlmm] Some comments // RE: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-netlmm-lma-discovery-05

"Narayanan, Vidya" <vidyan@qualcomm.com> Tue, 05 October 2010 14:08 UTC

Return-Path: <vidyan@qualcomm.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 3B7853A6F57 for <netlmm@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 07:08:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.855
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.855 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.744, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 rz8YLGXmTujk for <netlmm@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 07:08:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wolverine01.qualcomm.com (wolverine01.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.254]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 748A33A6F4E for <netlmm@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 07:08:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qualcomm.com; i=vidyan@qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1286287763; x=1317823763; h=from:to:cc:date:subject:thread-topic:thread-index: message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language: content-language:x-ms-has-attach:x-ms-tnef-correlator: acceptlanguage:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; z=From:=20"Narayanan,=20Vidya"=20<vidyan@qualcomm.com>|To: =20Jari=20Arkko=20<jari.arkko@piuha.net>|CC:=20"netlmm@ie tf.org"=20<netlmm@ietf.org>|Date:=20Tue,=205=20Oct=202010 =2007:09:19=20-0700|Subject:=20RE:=20[netlmm]=20Some=20co mments=20//=20RE:=20Fwd:=20New=20Version=20Notification =20for=0D=0A=20draft-ietf-netlmm-lma-discovery-05 |Thread-Topic:=20[netlmm]=20Some=20comments=20//=20RE:=20 Fwd:=20New=20Version=20Notification=0D=0A=20for=20draft-i etf-netlmm-lma-discovery-05|Thread-Index:=20ActkZxMGoX2e4 tlLTdqc0JVYN4d8xgAL2/rQ|Message-ID:=20<BE82361A0E26874DBC 2ED1BA244866B920B30C33AD@NALASEXMB08.na.qualcomm.com> |References:=20<20100913093616.B6F433A6954@core3.amsl.com >=0D=0A=09<E6A9CB0C-41C3-48F7-A5A2-3CD1FA51DFD5@gmail.com >=0D=0A=09<003f01cb553d$acd29900$0677cb00$%cui@huawei.com >=0D=0A=09<6EB3A011-D90A-41E0-847B-EE4EC35A37EC@gmail.com >=0D=0A=09<006901cb557f$4e5482c0$eafd8840$%cui@huawei.com >=0D=0A=09<6D56C9EB-84BE-4CF6-8CD1-8C153AF23450@gmail.com >=0D=0A=09<4C979C8A.7030000@gmail.com>=0D=0A=09<005d01cb5 939$9ad13180$d0739480$%cui@huawei.com>=0D=0A=09<4C992A3F. 2050509@gmail.com>=0D=0A=20<BE82361A0E26874DBC2ED1BA24486 6B91E9C4D00A6@NALASEXMB08.na.qualcomm.com>=0D=0A=20<4CAAE 120.7070300@piuha.net>|In-Reply-To:=20<4CAAE120.7070300@p iuha.net>|Accept-Language:=20en-US|Content-Language:=20en -US|X-MS-Has-Attach:|X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: |acceptlanguage:=20en-US|Content-Type:=20text/plain=3B=20 charset=3D"us-ascii"|Content-Transfer-Encoding:=20quoted- printable|MIME-Version:=201.0; bh=c+e2hU+SApxQjwXug2EzSHtZeqIIRwJwRmx+TO+EYPY=; b=mTyWFJcjQnesKvDydwLVWv3VNEoAJ/JE8rtuJ9rp79DKrH5l8Tbfe5Rj hj+xTq2nbba3xR4LuPCR/LM2JmOyR/7HxhhEGbqA31MdMoNdnrXMGy1mU 4eadtPvhZ7f+So5wjdfyxzXJCyB33m08FcMo0XofbNVy0kVi5McyAW22g s=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6126"; a="56769619"
Received: from ironmsg03-r.qualcomm.com ([172.30.46.17]) by wolverine01.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 05 Oct 2010 07:09:23 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.57,282,1283756400"; d="scan'208";a="17372542"
Received: from nasanexhub04.qualcomm.com (HELO nasanexhub04.na.qualcomm.com) ([129.46.134.222]) by Ironmsg03-R.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 05 Oct 2010 07:09:23 -0700
Received: from nalasexhc02.na.qualcomm.com (10.47.129.186) by nasanexhub04.na.qualcomm.com (129.46.134.222) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.254.0; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 07:09:23 -0700
Received: from NALASEXMB08.na.qualcomm.com ([10.47.16.13]) by nalasexhc02.na.qualcomm.com ([10.47.129.186]) with mapi; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 07:09:22 -0700
From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <vidyan@qualcomm.com>
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 07:09:19 -0700
Thread-Topic: [netlmm] Some comments // RE: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-netlmm-lma-discovery-05
Thread-Index: ActkZxMGoX2e4tlLTdqc0JVYN4d8xgAL2/rQ
Message-ID: <BE82361A0E26874DBC2ED1BA244866B920B30C33AD@NALASEXMB08.na.qualcomm.com>
References: <20100913093616.B6F433A6954@core3.amsl.com> <E6A9CB0C-41C3-48F7-A5A2-3CD1FA51DFD5@gmail.com> <003f01cb553d$acd29900$0677cb00$%cui@huawei.com> <6EB3A011-D90A-41E0-847B-EE4EC35A37EC@gmail.com> <006901cb557f$4e5482c0$eafd8840$%cui@huawei.com> <6D56C9EB-84BE-4CF6-8CD1-8C153AF23450@gmail.com> <4C979C8A.7030000@gmail.com> <005d01cb5939$9ad13180$d0739480$%cui@huawei.com> <4C992A3F.2050509@gmail.com> <BE82361A0E26874DBC2ED1BA244866B91E9C4D00A6@NALASEXMB08.na.qualcomm.com> <4CAAE120.7070300@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <4CAAE120.7070300@piuha.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "netlmm@ietf.org" <netlmm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [netlmm] Some comments // RE: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-netlmm-lma-discovery-05
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: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 14:08:27 -0000

Okay, thanks.  I started writing the shepherding writeup and realized a couple of things: 

- Why is RFC5213 not a normative reference for this document?  It sounds to me that it should be. 

IDnits produces a couple of comments: 

== Outdated reference: draft-ietf-mipshop-pfmipv6 has been published as RFC
     5949

  -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4306
     (Obsoleted by RFC 5996)

Please also update the document to address the above references. 

Jari, I will put the normative reference comment in my writeup and send it - this can be corrected in the next rev along with addressing your comments below. 

Thanks,
Vidya

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jari Arkko [mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 1:26 AM
> To: Narayanan, Vidya
> Cc: Vijay Devarapalli; Xiangsong Cui; netlmm@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [netlmm] Some comments // RE: Fwd: New Version
> Notification for draft-ietf-netlmm-lma-discovery-05
> 
> Yes it can be handled as such. In any case, I have to do the AD review
> of this document version and there might be other changes, so those too
> can be done by Jouni at an appropriate time.
> 
> I have added the document to my queue.
> 
> Jari
> 
> Narayanan, Vidya kirjoitti:
> > It seems to me that a reference to RFC5149 and a description of how
> it applies is appropriate.  Vijay, can this be handled as RFC-Editor
> notes?  I'm wondering if there is any reason we can't move this
> document along to IESG review in its current state.
> >
> > Vidya
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: netlmm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:netlmm-bounces@ietf.org] On
> >> Behalf Of Vijay Devarapalli
> >> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 2:57 PM
> >> To: Xiangsong Cui
> >> Cc: netlmm@ietf.org
> >> Subject: Re: [netlmm] Some comments // RE: Fwd: New Version
> >> Notification for draft-ietf-netlmm-lma-discovery-05
> >>
> >> On 9/20/10 8:03 PM, Xiangsong Cui wrote:
> >>
> >>> I don't think so.
> >>> As I said in my earlier mail, I think there is some circulation on
> >>>
> >> RFC5149
> >>
> >>> reference.
> >>>
> >>> RFC5149 reads,
> >>>     This document describes a Service Selection Mobility Option for
> >>>     Mobile IPv6 that is intended to *assist home agents* to make
> >>>
> >> specific
> >>
> >>>     service selections for the mobility service subscription
> **during
> >>>
> >> the
> >>
> >>>     binding registration procedure.**
> >>>
> >>> I think this is clear enough, RFC5149 is "assist HA ... during
> >>>
> >> registration
> >>
> >>> procedure", right?
> >>> While in this draft, we are talking about "assist LMA-discoverer to
> >>>
> >> select a
> >>
> >>> LMA, before registration procedure", right?
> >>>
> >> No. Read through the rest of the Introduction in RFC 5149. It
> >> specifically talks about distinguishing between multiple services
> that
> >> can be provided to a mobile node and how to identify the service
> that
> >> the mobile node wants to use when it sends a Binding Update to the
> home
> >> agent. (in PMIPv6, it would be the PBU from the MAG to the LMA).
> >>
> >> Vijay
> >>
> >>
> >>> How can we mix them together?
> >>>
> >>> Desired service may be used for purpose A, and may be used for
> >>>
> >> purpose B,
> >>
> >>> but this not means A and B *MUST* be free to be cross-referenced,
> >>>
> >> imho.
> >>
> >>> So I agree LMA-discovery refer on desired service, and I disagree
> >>> LMA-discovery refer on RFC5149.
> >>> And I am open for any clarification on desired service, if it is
> not
> >>>
> >> clear.
> >>
> >>> Xiangsong
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Vijay Devarapalli [mailto:dvijay@gmail.com]
> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 1:40 AM
> >>>> To: jouni korhonen
> >>>> Cc: Xiangsong Cui; netlmm@ietf.org
> >>>> Subject: Re: [netlmm] Some comments // RE: Fwd: New Version
> >>>>
> >> Notification
> >>
> >>> for
> >>>
> >>>> draft-ietf-netlmm-lma-discovery-05
> >>>>
> >>>> On 9/16/10 2:44 AM, jouni korhonen wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Inline..
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Sep 16, 2010, at 12:12 PM, Xiangsong Cui wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [snip]
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> Anyway, I have no problem of removing RFC5149 reference if that
> >>>>>>>
> >> is
> >>
> >>>>>> offending.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It only appeared in -04 version of this draft.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> I prefer "selecting a LMA based on desired services." Thanks!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Ok. Good.
> >>>>>
> >>>> No, this is too vague. It is hard for someone not familiar with
> 3GPP
> >>>>
> >> to
> >>
> >>>> figure out what it means to select LMA based on the services
> >>>>
> >> desired.
> >>
> >>>> Service specific mobility anchor points are very 3GPP specific. So
> I
> >>>> think we should have the reference to RFC 5149. That RFC clearly
> >>>> explains what a "service" means in addition to defining a new
> >>>>
> >> mobility
> >>
> >>>> option. I think you should put back this reference.
> >>>>
> >>>> Vijay
> >>>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> netlmm mailing list
> >> netlmm@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > netlmm mailing list
> > netlmm@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm
> >
> >