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

[Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jouni,



----- Original Message ----
> From: jouni korhonen <[e-mail]>
> To: Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Vijay Devarapalli <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> 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 <[e-mail]>
> >> To: Behcet  Sarikaya <[e-mail]>
> >> Cc: Behcet  Sarikaya <[e-mail]>; jouni  korhonen 
> >> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> >> 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.

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.

These are my points.


Regards,

Behcet