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

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