Re: [shim6] AD review of draft-ietf-shim6-multihome-shim-api

Miika Komu <mkomu@cs.hut.fi> Thu, 14 October 2010 20:45 UTC

Return-Path: <mkomu@cs.hut.fi>
X-Original-To: shim6@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: shim6@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A69573A6B9D for <shim6@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 13:45:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.45
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.839, BAYES_00=-2.599, FRT_STOCK2=3.988, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 XP7ngC6ixDkO for <shim6@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 13:45:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.cs.hut.fi (mail.cs.hut.fi [130.233.192.7]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73B193A6A6E for <shim6@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 13:45:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hutcs.cs.hut.fi ([130.233.192.10] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by mail.cs.hut.fi with esmtp (Exim 4.54) id 1P6Ugr-0001Ac-LU; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 23:46:17 +0300
Message-ID: <4CB76C19.208@cs.hut.fi>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 23:46:17 +0300
From: Miika Komu <mkomu@cs.hut.fi>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.12) Gecko/20100915 Thunderbird/3.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Shinta Sugimoto <shinta@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
References: <20100816114202.1241.59079.idtracker@localhost> <4C692876.60802@ cs.hut.fi> <4535F52C-8E78-4CBE-8983-DD7195722865@apnic.net> <4C69DE84.8010 7 06@sfc.wide.ad.jp> <4C91D119.5010101@cs.hut.fi> <4C91E946.6080807@sfc.wide.ad.jp> <4C920431.2090603@cs.hut.fi> <86C69B19-D385-46A9-B116-5EE198273305@apnic. n e t> <4CAA425E.2070906@piuha.net> <4CAEB35B.3020107@cs.hut.fi> <4CAEDEAD.9060407@piuha.net> <4CAF01F6.3030905@cs.hut.fi> <7CC566635CFE364D87DC5803D4712A6C4CEC451999@X CH-NW-10V.nw.nos.boeing.com> <4CB53CCC.3080903@cs.hut.fi> <7CC566635CFE364D87DC5803D4712A6C4CEC4519A4@XCH-NW-10V.nw.nos.boeing.com> <4CB68883.7070408@cs.hut.fi> <7CC566635CFE364D87DC5803D4712A6C4CEC4519C0@XCH-NW-10V.nw.nos.boeing.com> <4CB6951F.7040103@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
In-Reply-To: <4CB6951F.7040103@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: shim6 <shim6@ietf.org>, "kristian.slavov@ericsson.com" <kristian.slavov@ericsson.com>
Subject: Re: [shim6] AD review of draft-ietf-shim6-multihome-shim-api
X-BeenThere: shim6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: SHIM6 Working Group Mailing List <shim6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/shim6>, <mailto:shim6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/shim6>
List-Post: <mailto:shim6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:shim6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/shim6>, <mailto:shim6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 20:45:09 -0000

Hi,

On 10/14/2010 08:29 AM, Shinta Sugimoto wrote:
> Hi Miika and Thomas,
>
> Henderson, Thomas wrote:
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Miika Komu [mailto:mkomu@cs.hut.fi]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 9:35 PM
>>> To: Henderson, Thomas R
>>> Cc: shim6; kristian.slavov@ericsson.com
>>> Subject: Re: [shim6] AD review of draft-ietf-shim6-multihome-shim-api
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 13/10/10 17:23, Henderson, Thomas R wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes, but the HIP native API draft does not say anything about
>>>> overriding the rules in the shim6 API specification concerning
>>>> the need for shim context. Maybe that should be clarified in
>>>> the HIP API draft.
>>> I think it would have been simpler to keep the exception in the SHIM6
>>> draft rather than changing the HIP draft which is in editor queue
>>> (blocked by the SHIM6 draft)?
>>>
>>
>> You raise a good procedural point; I would also be fine with editing
>> the shim6 draft if Shinta is OK with it.
>
> I see.
>
> I would like to keep the socket option (to specify the initial locator,
> i.e., where to send I1 message) separate from SHIM_LOC_PEER_SEND because
> they are semantically different. Are you fine with adding a socket
> option something like SHIM_INITIAL_PEER_LOCATOR in the multihome shim
> API document (this one)?

procedurally, I'm not really fine with this because then we have to 
change anyway the native HIP API. It is already referring to 
SHIM_LOC_PEER_PREF, SHIM_LOCLIST_PEER and SHIM_LOC_PEER_SEND:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hip-native-api-12#section-4.6

Technically, I am not convinced if having a separate constant for 
initial locator is really needed.

It seems that we have the following options:

1. Override the statement in the native HIP API draft
2. Remove the statement in the SHIM API
3. Cross-reference the native HIP API draft
4. Document the exception for HIP in the SHIM API

I would be in favor of 2 and perhaps 3. What about others?

> The socket option can be described as follows:
>
> - The socket option allows application to specify the destination IP
> address to send HIP I1 message.
> - This socket option is accepted only when the multihoming shim
> sub-layer is HIP. Otherwise, EOPNOTSUPP is returned.
> - There is no specific requirements about the type of socket to which
> the setsockopt() is called (but it should be in an unconnected state as
> I mentioned in my previous email).
> - There is no specific requirements about the presence of shim context
> associated with the socket either. (but there should be no shim context
> associated with the socket because the socket option is supposed to be
> called at the very beginning of the session)
>
> Please let me know if the above sounds reasonable to you, Miika and Thomas.