IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Vijay Devarapalli <dvijay@gmail.com> Mon, 20 September 2010 17:40 UTC

Return-Path: <dvijay@gmail.com>
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 9995C3A6AC2 for <netlmm@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 10:40:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.36
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.36 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.239, 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 1Did+UeWS2zO for <netlmm@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 10:40:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pv0-f172.google.com (mail-pv0-f172.google.com [74.125.83.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB8A43A6ABB for <netlmm@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 10:40:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pvg7 with SMTP id 7so1859361pvg.31 for <netlmm@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 10:40:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=91VxJlF3hNdjHuoWBLnIHqmK+KwVLs3bx1WjilnSP3Q=; b=Gr1mjr3lFpr8LekL6sxIlwHeYalSO0M4PRH5r68NNKGbbh1i2WAWAMecfDzBvsGnTs CYZ6hEMriS2udBZhdindGZBR54jfXyONUec9nC2VP2Td15luv3lTyoAIISI2NwmHMJiO 3zEsAAjEqRp9XWhOF6TOoj+E9n2JAE+/PbLAA=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=s2uIwsTBJyif3Kst8P1qeLKw0FVdrRWUSzsyyj7lcRnmUNXpCK83H+82DCc1g6o0m3 WWnIDeDDimcE6U/Gt8ea3A11u/raa8uNtkii7P90clqBtNnutBnD2Wi+VqcahltQDuZG v6QzU5VUC5rR1fXrvAFwPltHlCYc78QQLWLj8=
Received: by 10.114.106.13 with SMTP id e13mr10467336wac.153.1285004428775; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 10:40:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vijay-mac-2.local (adsl-99-96-187-86.dsl.pltn13.sbcglobal.net [99.96.187.86]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d2sm13880944wam.2.2010.09.20.10.40.26 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 20 Sep 2010 10:40:27 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4C979C8A.7030000@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 10:40:26 -0700
From: Vijay Devarapalli <dvijay@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100825 Thunderbird/3.1.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.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>
In-Reply-To: <6D56C9EB-84BE-4CF6-8CD1-8C153AF23450@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: 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: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 17:40:06 -0000

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email