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

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Tue, 05 October 2010 08:25 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
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 D1BB33A6EE1 for <netlmm@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 01:25:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.437
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.437 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.162, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 hzitCPAfyAR3 for <netlmm@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 01:25:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35CD93A6C28 for <netlmm@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 01:25:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9CFE2CC3C; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 11:26:09 +0300 (EEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kgcxF8j-seM9; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 11:26:08 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (unknown [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 740752CC30; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 11:26:08 +0300 (EEST)
Message-ID: <4CAAE120.7070300@piuha.net>
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 11:26:08 +0300
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100411)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Narayanan, Vidya" <vidyan@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>
In-Reply-To: <BE82361A0E26874DBC2ED1BA244866B91E9C4D00A6@NALASEXMB08.na.qualcomm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 08:25:20 -0000

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
>
>