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

["Narayanan, Vidya" <[e-mail]>]

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== Outdated reference: draft-ietf-mipshop-pfmipv6 has been published as RFC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:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 1:26 AM
> To: Narayanan, Vidya
> Cc: Vijay Devarapalli; Xiangsong Cui; [e-mail]
> 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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> >> Behalf Of Vijay Devarapalli
> >> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 2:57 PM
> >> To: Xiangsong Cui
> >> Cc: [e-mail]
> >> 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:[e-mail]]
> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 1:40 AM
> >>>> To: jouni korhonen
> >>>> Cc: Xiangsong Cui; [e-mail]
> >>>> 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
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > netlmm mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm
> >
> >