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

[Vijay Devarapalli <[e-mail]>]

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
>